Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 15:55:24 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: itmiller AT taz DOT dra DOT hmg DOT gb
Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Using GNU make (AHHHHHHH!), a solution
In-Reply-To: <4g9k1h$16h@trog.dra.hmg.gb>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960222154941.1294B-100000@is>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On 19 Feb 1996 itmiller AT taz DOT dra DOT hmg DOT gb wrote:

> I spent ALL weekend (and it was my birthday on Saturday :))

Happy birthday!

> reading the make info files and setting up a template makefile.
> EVENTUALLY, I came up with one that lets me keep the COFF files
> (required by the debuggers) as *.out if I define DEBUG, and put

I'm sorry you had to work so hard to reinvent what's already there to 
use.  If you invoke gcc like this:

	gcc -o myprog myprog.o ....

it will create *both* `myprog' and `myprog.exe', as opposed to this:

	gcc -o myprog.exe myprog.o ....

which will leave you with only `myprog.exe'.

> Of the more experienced djgpp programmers I ask does "dj make"
> behave in EXACTLY the same way as under, say, unix? My guess is

It behaves as GNU Make, which is a bit different (but not too different) 
from other Unix Make's.

> been perverse. Notice, for instance, that I have had to use both
> VPATH and vpath to search for dependencies because it will not
> (yes, I think it is being deliberately annoying :)) find the .cc
> files if I just use VPATH defined as ./src:./include. I find that

The `vpath' and `VPATH' features of GNU Make were and still are an area of
controversy.  I think you try to toucj exactly the areas where its
behavior is thought to be less then intuitive.  I generally try very hard
to avoid using it.  (Also note that vpath is not a standard Make feature.)