On 09/08/2009 15:19, Dave Korn wrote:
This makes me think that I should not ship anything by those names that is merely an alias for gcc. It would help broken packages that assume the existence of cc, but break any that assume the semantics of cc. I'm not sure which of those two is best.
IIRC packages (usually just hand-written Makefiles) using 'cc' (or $(CC), which make(1) defaults to 'cc') are just using it to mean a generic C compiler. I really don't think they care about SUSv2. OTOH, not having a 'cc' at all would make things really difficult.
It's possible that there might be a command-line switch to implement this behaviour in 4.5.0, in which case the problem will be moot and I can ship simple wrapper scripts that pass through the command-line options adding the new switch as they go, but I'm inclined to /not/ include simple alternatives-based aliases.
Makes sense wrt c89/c99. Yaakov -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
