Re: Patch: (comments please) EXEEXT fix

[Alexandre Duret-Lutz]

>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

 Tom> I'm interested in comments on the EXEEXT stuff.  Does this satisfy all
 Tom> the constraints?  I think it does (besides aesthetic appeal, that is).

I'm unhappy with this :( There are projects, like the one which
triggered this report (a PalmOS application), written
specifically for *one* platform where .exe has no meaning.
Automake is here used because it helps to simplify the
Makefiles, however requiring to append $(EXEEXT) would just
obfuscate them.  Given that Automake is meant to ease the
maintainance of Makefiles, I would rather vote for *not*
obsoleting the overriding of `foo:' by `foo$(EXEEXT):'.

The warning is another problem.  I understand that people using
`foo:' will usually want to upgrade to `foo$(EXEEXT):'.  In my
case I wish there was a way to disable it.  Maybe this can be
kept for later, as part of some -Wmumble option like Lars
suggested.

[...]

-- 
Alexandre Duret-Lutz