[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The %.o: rule

From: Harlan Stenn
Subject: Re: The %.o: 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.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]