From: Jose Manuel Lopez-Cepero <sigma AT ctv DOT es>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Compiling bits and pieces
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 22:54:04 +0200
Organization: Unisource Espana NEWS SERVER
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <3346BBEC.727F@ctv.es>
References: <Pine DOT GSO DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 970322115248 DOT 7722A-100000 AT sparkie DOT gnofn DOT org> <333C3C68 DOT 7475 AT ctv DOT es> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 970328202652 DOT 8347A-100000 AT sparkie DOT gnofn DOT org>
Reply-To: sigma AT ctv DOT es
NNTP-Posting-Host: macarena.ctv.es
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Hi Colin,

Colin W. Glenn wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Jose Manuel Lopez-Cepero wrote:
> > Hello!
> > > Is there a means for me to compile just a small part of my program without
> > you have no syntax errors, then the code *will* be effectively compiled
> > and passed to the linkey, which will most likely complain about not
> 
> Then basicly keep compiling until compliation errors cease, then do
> redirection to catch linking errors.  Sounds reasonable.

And why don't? Adequate prototyping can avoid *all* the errors at
compiling (given that the source is OK). If the one linking want a list
of unwritten (i.e. unreferenced) routines that are still to develop,
that's exactly what he (or she ;]) will get. So I don't mind it as
unreasonable.

I'm sure there _must_ be a smartest/fastest/better way to acieve this,
but hey... which one? Have you got any ideas on the subject?

Bye
-- 
 _*                        
\ |/_|\/||\                                 sigma AT ctv DOT es      
_\|\/|  ||_\  (formerly Sigmatech)      Jerez / Cadiz / Spain