Busybox make, modify my /dev/null on host

[Ralf Friedl]

Paul Fox wrote:
> 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.  if it's
> important that gcc be able to do "test runs" without creating
> output, then there should be a "test run" option that says,
> "don't create an output file".  or maybe "-o -" should be
> implemented, to allow writing to stdout, so it can be redirected
> to /dev/null. 
>   
I agree that it should not be necessary that gcc checks for special 
files. Of course it would be even better if ld would not create the 
output file until it is complete, but it is really a very special case. 
Normally the output file is just a regular file, and therefor it is OK 
to remove it.

Regards
Ralf Friedl