Re: [avr-gcc-list] Compiled code; output Bug or Not?

[Russell]

Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> Panther Electronics <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
> > I learn a few thing's from this, i must devote time on the
> > "makefile". any good URL where i can learn from? other than GCC or
> > AVR freaks these are only for those who understand Linux & C.
>
>
> Well, since "make" inherently grew with Unix, you'll find most
> descriptions based on Unix.  However, this doesn't hurt.  make simply
> executes shell commands (with "shell" having the Unix meaning; under
> DOS this is the thing named command.com, cmd.exe or the like).
> Whether your shell command to execute is a simple "echo" (which is a
> builtin to the Unix shell), or the complicated call to a compiler,
> passing many compiler options, is completely up to your Makefile.
> Once you understood the basics behind make, all that should be no
> problem to you...

After using 'make' for a few months and tracing thru and debugging make-files
on projects with multiple sub-directories and using make recursively, i
found that make is a really clumsy and hard-to-maintain solution. IMO, its
main faults are the lack of debugging tools for large make-file systems, and
difficulty in doing auto-dependency generation for non-trivial projects with
multiple levels of sub-directories.

I've looked for replacements and am just learning 'jam'. It is a simple language
that inherently handles large projects and keeps track of all dependencies by
scanning C sources for header files. It's also small (<100k).

http://www.perforce.com/jam/jam.html
http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?keywords=jam&searchon=names&subword=1&version=all&release=all

avr-gcc-list at http://avr1.org