Tom Lane writes: > > dep depend: > > $(CC) -MM $(CFLAGS) *.c >depend > > Why? Shouldn't CFLAGS include CPPFLAGS? These targets seem correct > to me as they stand ... other than assuming CC is gcc, but nevermind > that... Just a sanity check: Does anyone use `make depend'? Does everyone know about the better way to track dependencies? Does every-/anyone know why `make depend' is worse? I just don't want to bother fixing something that's dead anyway... (helpful reading: http://www.paulandlesley.org/gmake/autodep.html) -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://yi.org/peter-e/
- [HACKERS] Coming attractions: VPATH build; make variable... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] Coming attractions: VPATH build; make... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Coming attractions: VPATH build; ... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: make depend (Re: [HACKERS] Coming attractio... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: make depend (Re: [HACKERS] Coming attra... The Hermit Hacker
- Re: make depend (Re: [HACKERS] Coming attra... Tom Lane
- Re: make depend (Re: [HACKERS] Coming a... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: make depend (Re: [HACKERS] Com... Tom Lane
- Re: make depend (Re: [HACKERS]... Brook Milligan
- Re: make depend (Re: [HACKERS]... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] Coming attractions: VPATH build; make... Bruce Momjian