Path: chuka.playstation.co.uk!news
From: Jim <jim@codeworks.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: scee.yaroze.programming.gnu_compiler
Subject: Re: error file..
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 16:56:04 +0100
Organization: Mobius Codeworks Ltd.
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <358D2D14.6AD1DBDA@codeworks.demon.co.uk>
References: <3589d5d3.3140602@news.playstation.co.uk> <358A1D67.2198500D@micronetics.com> <slrn6opbha.f25.tjs@indy16.cs.monash.edu.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: codeworks.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I)

Toby Sargeant wrote:
> 
> Is this NT/95 syntax? is it the same as gcc main.c 2>&1 > error.lst? 
>If it isn't, then whoever wrote the NT/95 shell should be _shot_. 

Yep, sick ain't it.. :-)

>Under sh (where
> this syntax came from), your example would redirect stdout to a file, >and then redirect stderr to stdout (but not to the file). That's the 
>way it should be.
> 
> toby.

If you do it the correct way for example 'gcc 2>&1 > jim' its doesn't
redirect stderr to the file as you mention.  I don't even think MS
document any of this either.

To be honest though I was surprised it even worked at all.

I guess it the choice people make when they choose MS products.. :-)

Cheers

Jim