Which should I use, smake or make?  Are there any issues
related to using smake, like copyright, or maybe people using the
free version not having it?

smake has a very useful option for inline generating of response files, with <<.  For example:

OBJS: file1.obj file2.obj

test.exe: $(OBJS)
	sc -o$@ @<<
$(OBJS)
<<

If I have very many files, the command line limit may be exceeded, so automatic generation of linker response files, like above, is very useful.  How can I do this in make?  Not by "echo file1.obj >> link.lst", or similar, of course...  ;-)


Laurentiu

smake is most useful if you're used to Microsoft nmake. I tend to use make myself because it is simpler, and I write simple makefiles.

To get make to generate response files:

    foo.exe : foo.obj bar.obj foo.rsp
        link @foo.rsp

    foo.rsp: makefile
        echo foo,foo+ >foo.rsp
        echo bar; >>foo.rsp

Laurentiu Pancescu wrote in message <9ne4v6$d6j$1@digitaldaemon.com>...
>
>Which should I use, smake or make?  Are there any issues
>related to using smake, like copyright, or maybe people using the
>free version not having it?
>
>smake has a very useful option for inline generating of response files, with <<.  For example:
>
>OBJS: file1.obj file2.obj
>
>test.exe: $(OBJS)
> sc -o$@ @<<
>$(OBJS)
><<
>
>If I have very many files, the command line limit may be exceeded, so automatic generation of linker response files, like above, is very useful.  How can I do this in make?  Not by "echo file1.obj >> link.lst", or similar, of course...  ;-)
>
>
>Laurentiu

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:

>To get make to generate response files:
>
>    foo.exe : foo.obj bar.obj foo.rsp
>        link @foo.rsp
>
>    foo.rsp: makefile
>        echo foo,foo+ >foo.rsp
>        echo bar; >>foo.rsp
>

I already knew about this solution, it's widely used (NASM makefile for lcc-win32 uses it, for example: they even have a cute comment about repeated spawning of COMMAND.COM slowing things down :) - thanks anyway!

The problem I encountered is with V, which needs to call LIB.
Unfortunately, the echo approach doesn't work in this case: LIB
response files want & as a continuation character, and you
just can't create this with echo!  '&' seems to have some special
meaning to MS shell (at least Win2k's CMD.EXE), and I wasn't
able to produce it in an echo-ed file (not with %&, \&, &&,
nothing helped).

Would it be a too much effort to add SMAKE style automatic file generation to your MAKE?  Borland's MAKE also has it, and I think it's a nice feature.  Of course, I could use SMAKE, but it happens that I like your MAKE better...  ;)


Regards,
  Laurentiu

I think the & problem can be fixed by prefixing them with ^, thus use
^&
(That's what I vaguely remember)

Jan



Laurentiu Pancescu wrote:

> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
> >To get make to generate response files:
> >
> >    foo.exe : foo.obj bar.obj foo.rsp
> >        link @foo.rsp
> >
> >    foo.rsp: makefile
> >        echo foo,foo+ >foo.rsp
> >        echo bar; >>foo.rsp
> >
>
> I already knew about this solution, it's widely used (NASM makefile for lcc-win32 uses it, for example: they even have a cute comment about repeated spawning of COMMAND.COM slowing things down :) - thanks anyway!
>
> The problem I encountered is with V, which needs to call LIB.
> Unfortunately, the echo approach doesn't work in this case: LIB
> response files want & as a continuation character, and you
> just can't create this with echo!  '&' seems to have some special
> meaning to MS shell (at least Win2k's CMD.EXE), and I wasn't
> able to produce it in an echo-ed file (not with %&, \&, &&,
> nothing helped).
>
> Would it be a too much effort to add SMAKE style automatic file generation to your MAKE?  Borland's MAKE also has it, and I think it's a nice feature.  Of course, I could use SMAKE, but it happens that I like your MAKE better...  ;)
>
> Regards,
>   Laurentiu

Jan Knepper <jan@smartsoft.cc> wrote:

>I think the & problem can be fixed by prefixing them with ^, thus use
>^&
>(That's what I vaguely remember)
>
>Jan

Thanks, it worked!!  :)

Laurentiu

The ^& works in my tests. -Walter

Jan Knepper wrote in message <3B9D0FA7.30F56E7D@smartsoft.cc>...
>I think the & problem can be fixed by prefixing them with ^, thus use
>^&
>(That's what I vaguely remember)
>
>Jan
>
>
>
>Laurentiu Pancescu wrote:
>
>> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>
>> >To get make to generate response files:
>> >
>> >    foo.exe : foo.obj bar.obj foo.rsp
>> >        link @foo.rsp
>> >
>> >    foo.rsp: makefile
>> >        echo foo,foo+ >foo.rsp
>> >        echo bar; >>foo.rsp
>> >
>>
>> I already knew about this solution, it's widely used (NASM makefile for lcc-win32 uses it, for example: they even have a cute comment about repeated spawning of COMMAND.COM slowing things down :) - thanks anyway!
>>
>> The problem I encountered is with V, which needs to call LIB.
>> Unfortunately, the echo approach doesn't work in this case: LIB
>> response files want & as a continuation character, and you
>> just can't create this with echo!  '&' seems to have some special
>> meaning to MS shell (at least Win2k's CMD.EXE), and I wasn't
>> able to produce it in an echo-ed file (not with %&, \&, &&,
>> nothing helped).
>>
>> Would it be a too much effort to add SMAKE style automatic file generation to your MAKE?  Borland's MAKE also has it, and I think it's a nice feature.  Of course, I could use SMAKE, but it happens that I like your MAKE better...  ;)
>>
>> Regards,
>>   Laurentiu
>

The linker responce file also requires a blank line (for missing additional libs). How do you get that one?

echo    >> file
echo "" >> file

etc does not work.
- Rajiv

Walter <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:9njsqd$iis$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> The ^& works in my tests. -Walter
>
> Jan Knepper wrote in message <3B9D0FA7.30F56E7D@smartsoft.cc>...
> >I think the & problem can be fixed by prefixing them with ^, thus use
> >^&
> >(That's what I vaguely remember)
> >
> >Jan
> >
> >
> >
> >Laurentiu Pancescu wrote:
> >
> >> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >To get make to generate response files:
> >> >
> >> >    foo.exe : foo.obj bar.obj foo.rsp
> >> >        link @foo.rsp
> >> >
> >> >    foo.rsp: makefile
> >> >        echo foo,foo+ >foo.rsp
> >> >        echo bar; >>foo.rsp
> >> >
> >>
> >> I already knew about this solution, it's widely used (NASM makefile for lcc-win32 uses it, for example: they even have a cute comment about repeated spawning of COMMAND.COM slowing things down :) - thanks anyway!
> >>
> >> The problem I encountered is with V, which needs to call LIB.
> >> Unfortunately, the echo approach doesn't work in this case: LIB
> >> response files want & as a continuation character, and you
> >> just can't create this with echo!  '&' seems to have some special
> >> meaning to MS shell (at least Win2k's CMD.EXE), and I wasn't
> >> able to produce it in an echo-ed file (not with %&, \&, &&,
> >> nothing helped).
> >>
> >> Would it be a too much effort to add SMAKE style automatic file generation to your MAKE?  Borland's MAKE also has it, and I think it's a nice feature.  Of course, I could use SMAKE, but it happens that I like your MAKE better...  ;)
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>   Laurentiu
> >
>
>

Cool!
I didn't even take drugs to remember it!
Or may be I did remember it because I never took drugs! <g>

Jan



Laurentiu Pancescu wrote:

> Jan Knepper <jan@smartsoft.cc> wrote:
>
> >I think the & problem can be fixed by prefixing them with ^, thus use
> >^&
> >(That's what I vaguely remember)
> >
> >Jan
>
> Thanks, it worked!!  :)
>
> Laurentiu

Just use a comma, not a blank line. -Walter

Rajiv Bhagwat wrote in message <9nkf33$tpm$1@digitaldaemon.com>...
>The linker responce file also requires a blank line (for missing additional libs). How do you get that one?
>
>echo    >> file
>echo "" >> file
>
>etc does not work.
>- Rajiv
>
>Walter <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:9njsqd$iis$2@digitaldaemon.com...
>> The ^& works in my tests. -Walter
>>
>> Jan Knepper wrote in message <3B9D0FA7.30F56E7D@smartsoft.cc>...
>> >I think the & problem can be fixed by prefixing them with ^, thus use
>> >^&
>> >(That's what I vaguely remember)
>> >
>> >Jan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Laurentiu Pancescu wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >To get make to generate response files:
>> >> >
>> >> >    foo.exe : foo.obj bar.obj foo.rsp
>> >> >        link @foo.rsp
>> >> >
>> >> >    foo.rsp: makefile
>> >> >        echo foo,foo+ >foo.rsp
>> >> >        echo bar; >>foo.rsp
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I already knew about this solution, it's widely used (NASM makefile for lcc-win32 uses it, for example: they even have a cute comment about repeated spawning of COMMAND.COM slowing things down :) - thanks anyway!
>> >>
>> >> The problem I encountered is with V, which needs to call LIB.
>> >> Unfortunately, the echo approach doesn't work in this case: LIB
>> >> response files want & as a continuation character, and you
>> >> just can't create this with echo!  '&' seems to have some special
>> >> meaning to MS shell (at least Win2k's CMD.EXE), and I wasn't
>> >> able to produce it in an echo-ed file (not with %&, \&, &&,
>> >> nothing helped).
>> >>
>> >> Would it be a too much effort to add SMAKE style automatic file generation to your MAKE?  Borland's MAKE also has it, and I think it's a nice feature.  Of course, I could use SMAKE, but it happens that I like your MAKE better...  ;)
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>   Laurentiu
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Ha! That one worked. ;) Cheating the linker with 2 non-existing libraries,
uh?
Thanks.

For record, I could use the 'echo' for creating detail lines for IMPORTS section of a .def file, (these lines start with spaces or tabs) as echo just eats up the first space and copies everything out.

With 'echo' being an in-built command, I guess this has to be the portable
(and efficient) way of creating uniform makefiles. All these days I was
using an ancient Borland 'maker' for sc projects, with yet another way for
creating response files.
Thanks for all the clarifications.
-- Rajiv
Oh: It looks like 'echo' is not always a built in command for 'make', some
versions use the shell?


Walter <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:9nl9o2$1cbd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Just use a comma, not a blank line. -Walter
>
---- clipped ---