vda wrote: > 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.
but statements like "the toolchain was always broken", and "gcc-3.4.6 clearly has the bug where it will unlink /dev/null..." are ridiculous. it's the makefiles that are broken, not gcc. in any case, i agree with mike. the horse is dead, and out of the barn door, too. paul =--------------------- paul fox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
