Best Way to Compile Large Project

[Stefaan A Eeckels]

What also tends to be revealed by make *questions* is that the
questioner has not read 'info make'[1], which should a first step to
any serious use of it.

I'm very familiar with make. Just that I wanted to know:

a)Are there any limitations of make that will make it unsuitable for
a very large project?

You are not familiar with make

b)Are there any better alternatives?

For certain values of better. Make is pretty good at what it does, but
it rubs many people the wrong way. As a result, many people have
developed alternatives. They are sometimes better. Mostly they are
worse. If you have a pet gripe with make, then _you_ should research
alternatives that don't have that particular issue.

 

[David T. Ashley]

You are not familiar with make

make is that dog of a program dating back to at least the 1980's where
you specify targets, actions, and dependencies, right?

And there are some extra goodies thrown in so that modifying a makefile
is easier (i.e. configuration items in one place) and so that commands
like "make check", "make clean" etc. are possible?

Did I miss anything?

What makes you think I'm not familiar with make?

P.S.--I really didn't need to make this post. I'm just testing Mozilla
as a newsgroup reader. Microsoft Outlook Express seems to have some
annoying bugs. So, if anyone has recommendations ...

 

[Pascal Bourguignon]

make is that dog of a program dating back to at least the 1980's where
you specify targets, actions, and dependencies, right?

And there are some extra goodies thrown in so that modifying a
makefile is easier (i.e. configuration items in one place) and so that
commands like "make check", "make clean" etc. are possible?

Did I miss anything?

What makes you think I'm not familiar with make?

Well, some familiarity with make would let you know that make is used
for most software projects, including the bigest open source ones. If
make is good enough for a ~24000-file Linux project or a ~42000-file
Mozilla project, what makes you think that it won't be good enough for
your 100-file software project?

 

[Mark McIntyre]

I'm very familiar with make. Just that I wanted to know:

a)Are there any limitations of make that will make it unsuitable for a very
large project?

"make" isn't part of C, so in the context of CLC, this question is
essentially offtopic. However IME for large projects (say with a few
tens of libraries with interdependencies) you need something more
sophisticated.

b)Are there any better alternatives?

yes. A general programming group can probably advise.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Keith Thompson]

"make" isn't part of C, so in the context of CLC, this question is
essentially offtopic. However IME for large projects (say with a few
tens of libraries with interdependencies) you need something more
sophisticated.

Yes -- but some of those more sophisticated solutions work on top of
"make". For example, there are systems that automatically generate a
Makefile from some higher-level description.

yes. A general programming group can probably advise.

Such as comp.unix.programmer or, if you're not restricting yourself to
Unix-like systems, comp.programmer.

I see that this is already cross-posted to comp.unix.programmer, so
I'll redirect followups there.

 

[Richard Bos]

Mr. Jumppanen a well-known figure on many other programming and
compiler newsgroups. I think you've probably done him a disservice my
labeling him a spammer.

He may post the most worthwhile posts elsewhere, and in those groups he
will not be a spammer but a well-received contributor; but in
comp.lang.c, I've never seen him post anything else except
advertisements for his editor, as he's done twice recently.

Richard

 

[Default User]

He may post the most worthwhile posts elsewhere, and in those groups
he will not be a spammer but a well-received contributor; but in
comp.lang.c, I've never seen him post anything else except
advertisements for his editor, as he's done twice recently.

Did you fail to notice that this thread is cross-posted to
comp.unix.programmer?




Brian

 

[Al Balmer]

Did you fail to notice that this thread is cross-posted to
comp.unix.programmer?

Do you mean that it's OK to spam c.l.c. as long as you also spam
c.u.p.?

 

[Default User]

groups >> he will not be a spammer but a well-received contributor;
but in >> comp.lang.c, I've never seen him post anything else except
Do you mean that it's OK to spam c.l.c. as long as you also spam
c.u.p.?

Richard was talking about what Jussi posted to clc. The point is that
likely he posted it to cup. I don't know if it's on-topic or not there,
I don't presume to speak for another group.

Personally, I don't believe he was guilty of spamming here either. He
answered the question with a reference to a forum thread, which is in
my opinion valid. The so-called "spam" consists of an improperly
demarcated signature. In no way did it seem to me like that was posted
as the answer to the question. Yes, Jussi needs to correct that and get
a proper delimiter for his signature, but no he didn't spam either
group.

I think Richard was way off-base. I think you're horning in without
really reviewing the situation. Anyone else I can slag while I'm at it?
Navia! It's all his fault, I'm sure.



Brian

 

[CBFalconer]

Your newsreader is seriously fouling the quoted material.

 

[Default User]

Your newsreader is seriously fouling the quoted material.

That happens sometimes when the quotes get too deep.



Brian