Re: Baffled by cc -o in Make manual

[Sven C. Dack]

Hello,

this is completely normal.

The compiler calls the assembler and linker automatically when needed 
and depending on the input files. One doesn't actually call the 
assembler and linker manually in most cases. You can do:

    cc -c prog.c -o prog.o

This will compile the file 'prog.c' into assembly code, pass it to the 
assembler, which then produces the 'prog.o' file. You can also do:

    cc -S prog.c -o prog.s

This tells the compiler to only produce assembly output and to write it 
to 'prog.s'. When you look at it can you see the assembler instructions, 
which would otherwise have been passed onto the assembler for it to 
produce an object file.

The compiler simply acts as a front-end to the assembler and linker. You 
can let the compiler do it all in one go where it calls the assembler 
and linker to build the final program:

    cc prog.c -o prog

Because programs can become quite large and managing the source requires 
many files is it more convenient to split the task into multiple files:

    cc -c prog1.c -o prog1.o

    cc -c prog2.c -o prog2.o

    cc -c prog3.c -o prog3.o

    cc -o prog prog1.o prog2.o prog3.o

And let's not forget the libraries. These also are being handled through 
the compiler even when it's the linker, which does the actual work:

    cc prog1.o prog2.o prog3.o mylib.a -lm -lc -o prog

And so on. This concept lets you manage the development of a program in 
convenient chunks and doesn't force you to keep an eye on the whole code 
all the time.

This is then why it has 'make' and Makefiles. It allows you to define 
how a program is being put together, how to call the compiler, which 
files belong together, and so on. And because 'make' can detect when 
files have changed does it make this particularly easy, because only 
what has changed then needs to be recompiled and thereby saves you time.

A simple, first Makefile for the three files 'prog1.c', 'prog2.c' and 
'prog3.c' could look like this:

prog1.o: prog1.c

    cc prog1.c -o prog1.o

prog2.o: prog2.c

    cc prog2.c -o prog2.o

prog3.o: prog3.c

    cc prog3.c -o prog3.o

prog: prog1.o prog2.o prog3.o

    cc prog1.o prog2.o prog3.o -o prog

When you now type 'make prog' will it check if a file by that name 
exists and if it's newer than 'prog1.o', 'prog2.o' and 'prog3.o'. If so 
then it knows 'prog' is up to date and doesn't need to be remade. 
Otherwise will it invoke "cc prog1.o prog2.o prog3.o -o prog" to produce 
a newer version.

But it doesn't stop there. Because it also has rules to make 'prog1.o' 
and the other two will it first check if perhaps these are out of date 
and if these need to be remade.

Thus, when one of the files 'prog1.c', 'prog2.c' or 'prog3.c' have 
changed and become newer will 'make' only remake those pieces of your 
program, which really require to be remade.

Once this is understood does everything else about 'make' fall into 
place. It's all about breaking large work into manageable chunks and to 
avoid extra work be defining clever rules, which will do all the 
necessary steps for you in order to put it all together.

I hope this helps you to understand the use of 'make' and 'cc'.

Cheers,

Sven



On 01/08/17 17:32, Ray Foulkes wrote:
> Hello, like many reports I suppose I have this totally wrong but the 
> very first example on page 4 of the make manual at
>
> https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.pdf reads:
>
>
> edit : main.o kbd.o command.o display.o \
> insert.o search.o files.o utils.o
>         cc -o edit main.o kbd.o command.o display.o \
>     insert.o search.o files.o utils.o
>
>
> I am totally baffled as to what cc -o is doing there. Surely it should 
> be ld?? and then the -o is for "output" i.e. create "edit" as an 
> executable.
>
> On the other hand it continues on through the other examples of using 
> variables in subsequent pages so I am beginning to doubt myself.
>
> I cannot understand how make knows to call ld if it is not explicit 
> somewhere in the file.
>
> Please ignore if I am just being stupid... If so, boy, have you got me 
> baffled - and I have only got to page 4!
>
>
> Regards, Ray Foulkes
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-make mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make