Re: Where did the Cygwin and Mingw checks go?

[Eric Christopher]

Akim Demaille wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "Mo" == Mo DeJong <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> Mo> Whats the deal?
> 
> That's the result of our hesitations about this issues, and the fact
> that we couldn't even come up with a precise definition of what EXEEXT
> and OBJEXT are.
> 
> For a start: are they related to host, or to build?
> 

They are (IMHO, of course) related to the output of the compiler on the
platform that is being built for in one case and the host building for
the other.  So a solaris cross cygwin compiler would define EXEEXT to be
.exe, however, OBJEXT would be .o because it was compiled on a solaris
box.  On a cygwin box, compiling natively EXEEXT would still be .exe,
however, OBJEXT would be .obj since the object files are residing on the
cygwin box.  Similarly a cygwin cross solaris toolchain (a weird, but
possible thing) would have EXEEXT be blank, and OBJEXT would be defined
as .obj since we're compiling on windows as the host.

Make sense?  Any disagreements?

-eric