On Thursday 14 February 2008 14:50, Paul Fox wrote: > > > > # ls -l /dev/null > > crwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1, 3 Feb 14 07:04 /dev/null > > > > # gcc file.c -o /dev/null > > /tmp/ccopqxnU.o: In function `main': > > file.c:(.text+0x1d): undefined reference to `doesnt_exist' > > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status > > > > # ls -l /dev/null > > ls: /dev/null: No such file or directory > > 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.
I think the goal of gcc is to be useful in real world usage, not to be pedantical. Removing /dev/null when it is specified in "-o /dev/null" may be a "pedantically correct" thing to do, but it is surely not useful. That's why it's better to not do it. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
