Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!unido!mikros!mwtech!martin
From: martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: MSC 5.1 make
Message-ID: <557@mwtech.UUCP>
Date: 18 Dec 89 12:54:41 GMT
References: <1989Dec15.021527.18711@sjuphil.uucp> <884@thor.wright.EDU>
Reply-To: martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel)
Organization: MIKROS Systemware, Darmstadt/W-Germany
Lines: 29

In article <884@thor.wright.EDU> sdawalt@wright.EDU (Shane Dawalt) writes:
>in article <1989Dec15.021527.18711@sjuphil.uucp>, ryan@sjuphil.uucp (Patrick M. Ryan) says:
>> 
>>      Is it just my imagination or is the version of Make which comes
>> with MSC 5.1 a pitiful imitation of the real Unix Make?
>
>  I do not use MSC, however, I have heard plenty of talk about MSC's
>make vs. Borland's make.  (Borland follows the Unix convention.)  There
>are many people wondering why their MSC make files will not produce the
>correct results under Borland's make.  I suspect that Microsoft may have
>relaxed the strict rule flow of Unix so that non-Unix users could simply
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>list their files in any order and make would run without problems ... then
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, I also don't know MSC, but I don't quite understand this: Under
UNIX I *can* list my rules in any order that I want! The places, where
the order matters, are in the '.SUFFIXES:'-line and in a few special
cases the order of the dependencies after a ':' is important.

In both cases it is essential that the order matters, because 
the order resolves some ambiguities, that would otherwise exist.

>you have the Unix people wondering why MSC's make is so "strange."  :-)

Or does the smiley face mean, that I should reverse the meaning
of your words, to put it right?

-- 
<<< MW -- email: see header -- voice: 49-(0)6151-6 56 83 >>>