Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!sun!plx!evan
From: evan@plx.UUCP (Evan Bigall)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: stdout (was What "isatty"?)
Message-ID: <1954@plx.UUCP>
Date: 31 May 89 21:51:05 GMT
References: <19756@adm.BRL.MIL> <17796@mimsy.UUCP>
Reply-To: evan@plx.UUCP (Evan Bigall)
Organization: Plexus Computers; San Jose, CA
Lines: 23

>In article <19756@adm.BRL.MIL> rbj@dsys.icst.nbs.gov (Root Boy Jim) writes:
>>I agree completely, Chris. Now get cracking on `cc', so that
>>`cc prog.c' writes to stdout instead of `a.out' :-)
>
>As you can see by the `:-)' sign, Jimmy C. is kidding.  But there is
>much truth in this.  The C compiler should write to stdout, unless
>there is some overriding reason that it cannot---

And to complete the circle, I would kill for a C compiler that would read
from standard input so I could do:

	lex -t -n input.l | sed -f fixlex.sed | m4 -s debug.m4 - | cc -c -

In this particular case, it would not even damage the error reporting abilities
of the compiler because the -s flag to m4 enables line sync output.  Of course
-c would need to take an argument to say where to put the .o (or apply a 
suitable convention), and there might be troubles if the compiler seek's 
through the input.  But, it would be so nice to avoid those temporary files.

As a side note, what do people name .c files intended for m4 pre-processing?
-- 
Evan Bigall, Plexus Computers, San Jose, CA (408)943-2283 ...!sun!plx!evan
"I barely have the authority to speak for myself, certainly not anybody else"