Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!mintaka!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!jik
From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: Makefiles -- .c and .h
Message-ID: <1990Nov19.232435.29864@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 19 Nov 90 23:24:35 GMT
References: <9011151442.AA02010@decpa.pa.dec.com> <ERICCO.90Nov19112308@soc1.ssl.berkeley.edu>
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Reply-To: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 21


In article <ERICCO.90Nov19112308@soc1.ssl.berkeley.edu>, ericco@ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric C. Olson) writes:
|> Why not compile the object files directly into a compilation dependent
|> library.  Like:

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how this resolves the problem of
dependencies on include files.  Your answer doesn't seem to have anything at
all to do with include files.

|> 	ar a $@ $(?:.c=.o)
|> 
|> lib%.a	: $(SRC)

What do the "(?:.c=.o)" and "%" do?  I can guess given the context, but these
are *not* portable Make constructs...

-- 
Jonathan Kamens			              USnail:
MIT Project Athena				11 Ashford Terrace
jik@Athena.MIT.EDU				Allston, MA  02134
Office: 617-253-8085			      Home: 617-782-0710