Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!timbuk!cs.umn.edu!ub.d.umn.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdahl!ntmtv!hopper
From: hopper@ntmtv.UUCP (Ian Hopper)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Anyone know of a "better" 'make' than vanilla System-V's?.
Message-ID: <1705@ntmtv.UUCP>
Date: 16 Oct 90 02:11:23 GMT
References: <1990Oct3.000440.5275@hades.ausonics.oz.au>
Organization: Northern Telecom, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 24

From article <1990Oct3.000440.5275@hades.ausonics.oz.au>, by greyham@hades.ausonics.oz.au (Greyham Stoney):
I've been tracking the followups to this but have not seen any
mention of the following:
 
	Most Unix C compilers support running CPP in a mode that reports 
	all dependencies within a source file. (Transitive #include's) 
 
	GNU make comes with source, so you can change it as needed.
		It has a lot of additional features built in.  This is the
		easiest apptoach, if the additional features are sufficient.
 
	imake - from the people who wrote X Windows.
		This is a thinly-veiled covering over the C pre-processor.
		Essentially your make file is maintained as a CPP input file,
		you use all of the features of CPP to "generate" your actual
		makefile. Nice approach if you are already comfortable with 
		weird CPP coding.
 
We are contemplating using options 2 and 3 to maintain 600K+ of code. I would 
be interested in people's experiences with these approaches.

-- 
Ian Hopper		{amdahl.com,ames.arpa,hplabs}!ntmtv!hopper
Northern Telecom Inc.	[Clever comment under construction.]