Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
Grrr. A day earlier and I could have given you more help since I'm working on a very complex project. Even the makefiles are generated on the fly, and use about every element that you can put into a makefile with many ifeq and ifneq. On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:16:32 -0400 David Kramer <david at thekramers.net> wrote: > My makefile is *mostly* working. > > My problem is this: I want to build a .o in a different directory from the > current one, and it's being rather stubborn unless I spell out the rule. > > Imagine if you will, a makefile that can build target1, target2, and > target3, and I'm adding troubletarget.o to it. Assume troubletarget.c is in > the currect directory with everything else > > If I do: > all: target1 target2 target3 troubletarget.o > it builds fine. > > If I do: > all: target1 target2 target3 ./troubletarget.o > it builds fine. > > If I do: > all: target1 target2 target3 ../otherdir/troubletarget.o > I get "make: *** No rule to make target ../otherdir/troubletarget.o" > which I can understand, because it doesn't know where the C file is. > > HOWEVER, if I do: > all: target1 target2 target3 ../otherdir/troubletarget.o > it simply does not try to build it at all. > > If I add a rule like: > ../otherdir/troubletarget.o: troubletarget.c > it still doesn;t attempt to build it. > > If I change that to > ../otherdir/troubletarget.o: troubletarget.c > $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -c $< -o $@ > it works, but I don't see why I have to do that, since it already knows how > to turn a .c into a .o, because earlier in the file I have > .c.o: > $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -c $< -o $@ > which should build it fine, > > Note that I can't use the newer style > %.o : %.c ; command... > because the stem is different on the .o and the .c since they're in > different directories. > > > Does this make sense? What am I doing wrong? Thanks in advance. > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at blu.org > http://olduvai.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.blu.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20050702/068af22a/attachment.sig>
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |