On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Paul Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > okay. educate me. why _shouldn't_ gcc remove the output file in > that case? if gcc removes the target of -o in all other cases, > then, in my opinion, /dev/null shouldn't be special. if it's > important that gcc be able to do "test runs" without creating > output, then there should be a "test run" option that says, > "don't create an output file". or maybe "-o -" should be > implemented, to allow writing to stdout, so it can be redirected > to /dev/null.
the real issue is more that /dev/null becomes a normal file. > > but gcc shouldn't be burdened with understanding the special > needs of the developer for specific file arguments. running > builds as root is like performing on the high wire without a net. > you need to understand the limits of your equipment. should gcc > also be told that it should refuse to write output when given "-o > /dev/hda1", if /dev/hda1 is a mounted filesystem? how smart do > we expect our tools to be? agreed. -- Christian -- http://detaolb.sourceforge.net/, a linux distribution for Qemu with Git inside ! _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
