I'm debating whether llvm should support the "a.out" convention for the default name of an executable file if no -o option is given to it. I'm currently of the mind that this naming convention is completely outdated and not worth propagating in llvmc. llvmc would require a -o option or you get an error. Your thoughts/ideas? Reid. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20040820/c4e6069d/attachment.sig>
> I'm debating whether llvm should support the "a.out" convention for the > default name of an executable file if no -o option is given to it. I'm > currently of the mind that this naming convention is completely outdated > and not worth propagating in llvmc. llvmc would require a -o option or > you get an error.I don't see anything wrong with having the default for the "-o" option be "a.out"... If it were up to me, I would keep it. -Brian
On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 10:53, Brian R. Gaeke wrote:> I don't see anything wrong with having the default for the "-o" option > be "a.out"... If it were up to me, I would keep it.Well, the issue for me is that "a.out" in LLVM land can be a shell script and even if its a native executable, it probably isn't in the ancient a.out format. perhaps we need "some" default, but not "a.out"? or, are you saying this default is so ingrained into developer's minds that it just needs to be supported regardless of the fact that it no longer makes sense?> > -Brian > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20040820/f96555dc/attachment.sig>
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Brian R. Gaeke wrote:> > I'm debating whether llvm should support the "a.out" convention for the > > default name of an executable file if no -o option is given to it. I'm > > currently of the mind that this naming convention is completely outdated > > and not worth propagating in llvmc. llvmc would require a -o option or > > you get an error. > > I don't see anything wrong with having the default for the "-o" option > be "a.out"... If it were up to me, I would keep it.I agree with Brian. Who knows what wierd configuration scripts or other stuff depends on this. -Chris -- http://llvm.org/ http://nondot.org/sabre/