This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Add search path to the cygwin.
- To: David Korn <dkorn at pixelpower dot com>
- Subject: Re: Add search path to the cygwin.
- From: mike corbeil ordinary user account <mcorbeil at NetRevolution dot com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:49:05 -0400
- CC: "'gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org'" <gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- References: <718D38CAB6E0D011B2C90060970C28A556FC5E@exchangeserver.pixelpower.com>
David Korn wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> >I ooops'd, and what's worse is that I even reviewed what I wrote. I've
> >been looking at the screen for too many hours, too many nights and
> >days. The eyes go "fuzzy", seeing whitespace instead of $.
> I know just what you mean. Even worse than seeing whitespace for your
> prompt is when your eyes start seeing what you *meant* to type instead of
> what you actually did. :-O
Yep. Has happened to me before, and maybe that's what happened this
> >Serves as possibly a good little tutorial for the person I was
> >responding to. I never programmed or worked in Unix before learning how
> >to do so and have always had books at hand for reference, for what ever
> >I was doing, including yours for ksh work.
> I had better point out, for the benefit of the list, that I am no relation
> to *that* David Korn. This means that when I try the ego-boosting trick of
> searching for my own name on the web I am generally disappointed!
Fast assumption on my part. I've found around six people, so far, with
the same name as mine, so I should know better. "Googly" more than just
> >Sorry for the error.
> No need to apologize. When even an old hand like Alexandre seemed not to
> have spotted it (or to have passed over without commenting) I thought I'd
> just mention it for the sake of completeness.
Well done and it's better that way. If a person was new to Unix, or
Linux, which ever was being used, and didn't have a decent book to refer
to, then what I had written could certainly be a "byte" of a pain or
I had forgotten the -I command line option to make, though could have
quickly looked it up in the man page (dumb of me to not verify). I've
read the book on make and the man page, but all of the makes I've ever
had to run had the includes
entirely defined in the Makefile(s), so I forgot about doing it on the
Using PATH for this seemed strange and I've no idea if it'd even work
(if it's stated in the book on make or the man page, then I don't
remember this part). I've only used PATH for executables.
Can PATH, or $PATH, actually be used to specify where include files are
> "The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that,
> you've got it made." -Groucho Marx
Business philosopher as well as good comedian, eh. I haven't seen any
of his material in years, but only remember a good comic.