On Thursday 14 February 2008 15:09, Christian MICHON wrote: > 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.
It gets deleted, and next script which redirects something to /dev/null will create it as a normal file. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
