Re: Request for critique on a small makefile

[Philip Guenther]

On 12/12/06, Edward Z. Yang <address@hidden> wrote:
...
> Is there a specific reason, then, that you use $< rather than $^?

No, more personal habit than rational decision: I used $< in makefile
long before I ever used a make that supported $^.  I agree that $^
makes more sense for rules that may have more than one input, such as
those for linking executables.

> > Ah.  Hmm.  My *guess* is that g++ will only add the .exe suffix if
> > there isn't already such a suffix present.  If so, then following the
> > three points I listed should work.
>
> This seems to be the case. I'm currently working around it by cleaning
> up *.exe files with make clean.   On Unix, ${programs} does the dirty
> work. I think this is a satisfactory solution (and not a hack).

So you didn't add the .exe suffix to the names in the 'programs'
variable?  Hmm.  What happens if you run 'make' twice, without
modifying any files?  If your makefile is correctly set up, then the
second 'make' will do nothing, because the targets are all up to date.
If the .exe confusion means that your makefile is violating Paul's
rule #2 then one or both executable will be rebuilt by the second
make.


Philip Guenther