[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The %.o: %.cc rule
From: |
Harlan Stenn |
Subject: |
Re: The %.o: %.cc rule |
Date: |
Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:03:23 -0400 |
User-agent: |
EMH/1.10.0 SEMI/1.13.7 (Awazu) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) XEmacs/21.1 (patch 12) (Channel Islands) (i386--freebsd) |
> Besides the reason that it's not nessasary are there any reasons why
> the automake inference rules for C and C++ don't use -o ?
>
> I seem to remember that some compilers don't accept -o is this correct?
Yes. Some older compilers will not accept both -c and -o .
> If so what is the typical way of dealing with the lack of -o when
> you want it?
either mv the produced .o name to what you want, or find a way to compile
the source from a faked .c file.
You could also mv an existing .o out of the way, compile, and rename back,
but that gets messy and doesn't do well with parallel makes.
H
- The %.o: %.cc rule, Clark Rawlins, 2001/06/03
- Re: The %.o: %.cc rule,
Harlan Stenn <=
- Re: The %.o: %.cc rule, Clark Rawlins, 2001/06/04
- Re: The %.o: %.cc rule, Tom Tromey, 2001/06/04
- Re: The %.o: %.cc rule, Clark Rawlins, 2001/06/04
- Re: The %.o: %.cc rule, Raja R Harinath, 2001/06/04
- Re: The %.o: %.cc rule, Tom Tromey, 2001/06/05
- Re: The %.o: %.cc rule, Clark Rawlins, 2001/06/05
- Re: The %.o: %.cc rule, Raja R Harinath, 2001/06/05