This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Binutils failures on cygwin: what about .exe?
- From: Rob Savoye <rob at welcomehome dot org>
- To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Cc: c dot christian dot joensson at telia dot com, dejagnu at gnu dot org, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:24:57 -0700
- Subject: Re: Binutils failures on cygwin: what about .exe?
- References: <20030228105443.GA22824@pentii.j-son.org> <m3y93sn2vr.fsf@workshop.nickc.cambridge.redhat.com>
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:36:08AM +0000, Nick Clifton wrote:
> > Could we either have the binutils testsuite always producing .exe
> > endings for executables (yeah, shouldn't be needed, but makes the
> > testsuite more portable perhaps) or could we fix the testsuite so that
> > any system producing .exe endings by default for their executables
> > also checks for such things, not endingless...
>
> Another possibility would be to add code to 'proc remote_download'
> that tests for the existence of 'file'. If it does not but 'file.exe'
> does exist then it could automatically add the .exe extension. That
> way the problem would cured for all testsuites that create executables
> and download them to a Cygwin host, not just this particular test
I guess this would a reasonable tweak, to load a file with or without
the .exe. But seriously, I do think all cygwin executables should have a
.exe extension. I added support for the .exe suffix this many years ago,
and I'm suprised to hear some executables don't have the .exe added. I
can make this change to remote_download, but I'd also think that the
binutils testsuite needs to be fixed as well, unless there is a valid reason
to not add the .exe extension.
- rob -