Hi Przemek, I've checked the source of hbmk script and hbmk2 was right the first time, so I will change it back, but in this case I don't understand point 1. and 2. of your bug report.
BTW, why hbcc for Harbour compiler? 'hbcc' seems to imply "Harbour C Compiler", while 'hbcmp' seems to mean 'Harbour Compiler'. What are the reasons behind the names? Brgds, Viktor On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Przemyslaw Czerpak <[email protected]>wrote: > On Mon, 02 Mar 2009, Vailton Renato wrote: > > Hi, > > > My reasoning is that if all files were available, I could build one > > .hbm only temporary with the names of source files that have not > > changed, adding the files .O[BJ] / .RES which were unchanged and thus > > could have hbmk2 a single call to conclude that the compilation / > > linking - avoiding multiple calls to him and thus streamlining the > > process. > > That's fine. But for any of such things you do not have to even > know that harbour creates any different *.xyz temporary files. > You only have to know that result of .prg compilation is .o[bj] > file. One of the very important hbmk2 functionality should be > direct support for harbour compiler and linker which can hide > any platform differences so you can use it in other make files > for your favorite make system, f.e. in GNU make: > > %.obj : %.prg > hbmk2 -hbcmp -n -w -es2 -gc2 -o $@ $< > > %.exe : %.obj > hbmk2 -hblnk -o $@ $< > > Of course you can also try to collect the list of files in some > .hbp/.hbm script if you think it will be better for some reasons, > f.e. due to command line size limitation but I cannot say too much > about their syntax. > > best regards, > Przemek > _______________________________________________ > Harbour mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour >
_______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
