Busybox make, modify my /dev/null on host

[Paul Fox]

vda wrote:
 > On Thursday 14 February 2008 14:50, Paul Fox wrote:
 > >  > 
 > >  > # ls -l /dev/null
 > >  > crwxrwxrwx    1 root     root       1,   3 Feb 14 07:04 /dev/null
 > >  > 
 > >  > # gcc file.c -o /dev/null
 > >  > /tmp/ccopqxnU.o: In function `main':
 > >  > file.c:(.text+0x1d): undefined reference to `doesnt_exist'
 > >  > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
 > >  > 
 > >  > # ls -l /dev/null
 > >  > ls: /dev/null: No such file or directory
 > > 
 > > okay.  educate me.  why _shouldn't_ gcc remove the output file in
 > > that case?  if gcc removes the target of -o in all other cases,
 > > then, in my opinion, /dev/null shouldn't be special.
 > 
 > I think the goal of gcc is to be useful in real world usage,
 > not to be pedantical.
 > 
 > Removing /dev/null when it is specified in "-o /dev/null"
 > may be a "pedantically correct" thing to do, but it is surely
 > not useful. That's why it's better to not do it.

but statements like "the toolchain was always broken", and
"gcc-3.4.6 clearly has the bug where it will unlink /dev/null..."
are ridiculous.  it's the makefiles that are broken, not gcc.

in any case, i agree with mike.  the horse is dead, and out of
the barn door, too.

paul
=---------------------
 paul fox, pgf at brightstareng.com