[Coco] OT: Unix/Linux Makefile question

[John R. Hogerhuis]

On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 23:31 -0500, KnudsenMJ at aol.com wrote:

> It occurred to me to try porting the Tim Kientzle OS9 Make to Linux --  would 
> work, *if* the source includes the Unix calls for getting a file's  timestamp.
> 

Better I think just to learn the GNU make syntax. As a core unix tool,
I'd be surprised if just about everything you could want in a make
utility isn't in there. Sure there's a learning curve, but it's probably
worth it. GNU make is the "industry standard" these days in embedded
toolchains, linux, BSD, etc.

In fact now there is a whole portability layer on top of make --
autoconfig/automake which I hope to be able to understand before I
discorporate.

> As far as generating products, that has more to do with the  compiler
> than make, right?
> Where the compiler generates .o files is  controlled by compiler options.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partly correct -- probably do have to put something in CFLAGS to steer the  
> output.  And some more flags to make the Linker pick up the .o files from  the 
> right place.
> But, Make has to know where to look for the .o files, to see which are out  
> of date.

Yep, finding the .o files is what the section I found in the info manual
is about, isn't it?

>  
> In Tim K.'s Make (which I helped work on, and fixed the Y2K bug in), it was  
> sooooo simple!
> Of course, "simple" is never used around Linux/Unix work :-)

I wouldn't say that. I'd rather write a Linux driver than, say a Windows
driver any day of the week...

-- John.