" "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> If you add "file3.c", just make sure it's included in foo_SOURCES: >> >> foo_SOURCES = file1.c file2.c file3.c hdr1.h >> >> That will make sure it gets built and linked into foo, and will take >> care of all dependency generation etc. > > I did that and it didn't take. > I added file3.c to foo_SOURCES but it didn't compile > file3.c when I ran make. > But when I added #include "header3.h" in file2.c then > it compiled file3.c. > > Does the order that the > files are listed make a difference?
No (well maybe it affects the order in which stuff gets compiled or something). When you type "make" after changing Makefile.am, is "Makefile" getting regenerated (via "Makefile.in")? That _should_ happen (automake inserts rules to do so). If not, you can at least type "autoreconf" to manually regenerate Makefile and make sure its contents are OK (and then figure out why Makefile isn't getting regenerated). I'm not really sure what's happening -- this kind of thing normally just works without much attention (you shouldn't normally ever have to pay attention to Makefile or Makefile.in, just edit Makefile.am). -Miles -- .Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
