[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [avr-gcc-list] Compiled code; output Bug or Not?

From: Russell
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Compiled code; output Bug or Not?
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 23:41:50 +1100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130

Joerg Wunsch wrote:
Panther Electronics <address@hidden> wrote:

I learn a few thing's from this, i must devote time on the
"makefile". any good URL where i can learn from? other than GCC or
AVR freaks these are only for those who understand Linux & C.

Well, since "make" inherently grew with Unix, you'll find most
descriptions based on Unix.  However, this doesn't hurt.  make simply
executes shell commands (with "shell" having the Unix meaning; under
DOS this is the thing named command.com, cmd.exe or the like).
Whether your shell command to execute is a simple "echo" (which is a
builtin to the Unix shell), or the complicated call to a compiler,
passing many compiler options, is completely up to your Makefile.
Once you understood the basics behind make, all that should be no
problem to you...

After using 'make' for a few months and tracing thru and debugging make-files
on projects with multiple sub-directories and using make recursively, i
found that make is a really clumsy and hard-to-maintain solution. IMO, its
main faults are the lack of debugging tools for large make-file systems, and
difficulty in doing auto-dependency generation for non-trivial projects with
multiple levels of sub-directories.

I've looked for replacements and am just learning 'jam'. It is a simple language
that inherently handles large projects and keeps track of all dependencies by
scanning C sources for header files. It's also small (<100k).


avr-gcc-list at http://avr1.org

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]