Using make

[js]

I have a source file called test.c. I have then made a
file called Makefile that contains the following:

test:
gcc test.c -o test


I have both the sourcefile and the Makefile in the same
dir. When I from this dir type "make" I get this
error:

mac2 c_assign > make
Makefile:2: *** missing separator. Stop.
mac2 c_assign >


I know it is not necessary to use make for only this
single file but I still would like to know what I am
missing.

 

[Sunil]

test:
gcc test.c -o test

In Makefile before the command a tab space should be there.

target:
<tab> command

I think you are missing this.

 

[Flash Gordon]

I have a source file called test.c. I have then made a
file called Makefile that contains the following:

test:
gcc test.c -o test

I know it is not necessary to use make for only this
single file but I still would like to know what I am
missing.

You are missing that this is not the correct group to ask this question.
Please ask on a group dedicated to your implementation where you will
get correct advise. I would also recommend reading the manuals for your
tool chain, commands like:
info make
man make
*might* provide you with the information you require, or you might have
some other form of "help file" on your system.

 

[Flash Gordon]

test:
gcc test.c -o test

In Makefile before the command a tab space should be there.

target:
<tab> command

I think you are missing this.

There are more makes than are dreamed of in your philosophy.

In other words, please redirect people to the correct groups so that
answers will be properly vetted. This is to help the person with a
problem, *not* to be awkward. What if the OP is using a make program
that works differently? I've used several different make programs which
all behave differently, and I know of several others, and you have no
way of knowing which the OP is using.

Also, please quote the message you are replying to properly, see many
posts on this group for instructions, including my reply to another
message from you. Admittedly you won't have seen my other reply before
you made this post, but there have been *lots* of posts providing
instructions, including posts only yesterday.

 

[Sunil]

I think you are sick of answering questions. If you don't want to
answer don't answer but atleast don't discourage poeple with your harsh
words. The better way to tell is to answer the question and then asking
him to post further questions in an appropriate group.

 

[Keith Thompson]

I think you are sick of answering questions. If you don't want to
answer don't answer but atleast don't discourage poeple with your harsh
words. The better way to tell is to answer the question and then asking
him to post further questions in an appropriate group.

No, the better way really is to redirect the poster to an appropriate
group, for reasons that have been explained nearly as many times as
the correct way to post a followup using groups.google.com.

There was nothing harsh about Flash Gordon's response.

 

[Martin Ambuhl]

I think you are sick of answering questions. If you don't want to
answer don't answer but atleast don't discourage poeple with your harsh
words. The better way to tell is to answer the question and then asking
him to post further questions in an appropriate group.

There are several things wrong with your response.

The first is that you provide no context at all. There is nothing in
your post indicating what the question might have been about, who you
were responding to, or what you might have found inappropriate about his
answer. This is, no doubt, because you don't understand how to properly
reply when using the broken google groups interface. The instructions
have appeared so often in this newsgroup that I can only conclude that
you have posted without following the newgroup first. This is a clear
breach of usenet etiquette.

Your original question was obviously off-topic here. That you did not
know this leads to the conclusion that you have posted without following
the newgroup first. This is a clear breach of usenet etiquette.

In spite of that, Flash Gordon -- who I suppose you are responding to --
gave a polite and informative response. He stepped beyond the proper
limits of the newsgroup not, as you claim, with "harsh words" but
because he himself posted off-topic. Rather than thank him for
answering your question, you attack. That you are unable to understand
the clear and useful words in his answer is your problem, not his. It
is you that has the character flaw (actually several) to be corrected,
not him. You have followed the common pattern of posting off-topic
questions and then reacting like a spoilt child when given a useful answer.