--- Brian Dessent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did you not see FX's reply on the fortran list?
> <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2007-11/msg00013.html> His solution
> is
> cleaner, since it effectively communicates to make that a.mod depends
> on
> a.f90 and a.o, but without implying that the module can be rebuilt by
> calling gfortran -c a.f90. I think the @true part is even extraneous
> if
> it looks too ugly.
Oh, I hadn't seen FX's answer, sorry. I will reply in the gfortran
list.
Thanks.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Help-make mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-make
