dave@sdeggo.UUCP (David L. Smith) (08/20/87)
Help! I'm going insane! I have MSC 4.0 with Make 4.02 and it is not
executing my makefiles properly. It doesn't seem to be paying any attention
to the dependencies list, instead it's just executing the commands in
the order it gets them. If I do make with the '/D' option, it shows
that it knows about the dependencies, it just seems to be ignoring them.
Has anyone else run into this problem? Is there something really simple
that I'm missing?
Thanks in advance
Dave
--
David L. Smith
{sdcsvax!sdamos,ihnp4!jack!man, hp-sdd!crash}!sdeggo!dave
sdeggo!dave@sdamos.ucsd.edu
"How can you tell when our network president is lying? His lips move."seamans@nlm-mcs.arpa (James R. Seamans) (08/20/87)
Yes!!! Yess!!! I was having the same problem with this product. I removed it and purchased Custom Software PC/Tools Make and have been sleeping sooooo much better. I spoke with Microsoft Tech Support and they adivsed "Gee we have not heard of any problems with Make....are you sure you set it up correctly!!"
jennings@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Jeff Jennings) (08/21/87)
In article <4351@nlm-mcs.arpa> seamans@nlm-mcs.UUCP (James R. Seamans) writes: >Yes!!! Yess!!! I was having the same problem with this product. >I removed it and purchased Custom Software PC/Tools Make and have >been sleeping sooooo much better. > >I spoke with Microsoft Tech Support and they adivsed "Gee we have >not heard of any problems with Make....are you sure you set it up >correctly!!" unlike unix make, the main target for a microsoft makefile comes as the last target in the file. MS-make just goes through the makefile, making targets if they are out of date with respect to their dependencies. it doesn't check the main target dependencies to see which subtargets to make. i use NDMAKE 3.8 that i got from don kneller. great program. i also use lattice make (LMK) at work, both are good products and very "unix-like". both are MUCH better than the MS attempt. -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Jeff Jennings University of Colorado, Boulder { ut-sally | ihnp4 } !nbires!boulder!jennings _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
michael@orcisi.UUCP (08/25/87)
MSC Make is not like Unix make. The latter only makes what is necessary to satisfy a (single) particular target; the former insures that *every* target in the "make file" is up-to-date.
dmt@mtunb.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) (08/29/87)
In article <79@sdeggo.UUCP> dave@sdeggo.UUCP writes: >Help! I'm going insane! I have MSC 4.0 with Make 4.02 and it is not >executing my makefiles properly. >.... >Is there something really simple that I'm missing? Yup, but not the sort of thing you think. FLAME ON! (Not flaming you, Dave.) Microsoft MAKE is a toy, compared with other MAKEs available. There are at least two good MAKEs for DOS that are remarkably close to UNIX MAKE. NDMAKE - shareware from Don Kneller. I believe he asks a $20 or $25 donation to register your copy. Worth every penny and then some. PolyMake from PolyTron - a commercial package for about $100. If you feel you need a solid company behind your tools (and thus feel a little antsy about shareware) this is a real good product. I shouldn't be surprised if there are others around. The point is: Microsoft MAKE is an obsolete toy. The solution to your problem is to get a REAL tool. Disclaimer: this is my own opinion. I don't know if my employer has an opinion on this subject. +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dave Tutelman | | Physical - AT&T - Lincroft, NJ | | Logical - ...ihnp4!mtuxo!mtunb!dmt | | Audible - (201) 576 2442 | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
boykin@custom.UUCP (Joseph Boykin) (08/29/87)
In article <1044@mtunb.ATT.COM>, dmt@mtunb.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) writes: > In article <79@sdeggo.UUCP> dave@sdeggo.UUCP writes: > >Help! I'm going insane! I have MSC 4.0 with Make 4.02 and it is not > >executing my makefiles properly. > > Microsoft MAKE is a toy, compared with other MAKEs available. Absolutely correct. Microsoft seems to like reading about 10% of the UNIX documentation and stopping. Good examples are make, find (somewhat like grep), more and sort. > There are at least two good MAKEs for DOS that are remarkably close to > UNIX MAKE. Just to add a plug... CSS Has a full version of MAKE which is part of our PC/TOOLS product. Macros, multiple targets behind a colon, etc. Essentially, it is an implementation of the Augmented Make under UNIX. PC/TOOLS costs $49 and has 37 utilities, all of which are full implementation of their UNIX 'cousins' In the 'coming soon' category are SCCS and CSH. Joe Boykin Custom Software Systems ...necntc!custom!boykin
phil@sci.UUCP (08/30/87)
In article <643@orcisi.UUCP>, michael@orcisi.UUCP (Michael Herman) writes: > MSC Make is not like Unix make. The latter only makes what is necessary > to satisfy a (single) particular target; the former insures that *every* > target in the "make file" is up-to-date. Forget MSC make. It isn't worth the effort. There is an outstanding "MAKE" called NDmake that is shareware and really does the job.
gp@picuxa.UUCP (09/01/87)
In article <79@sdeggo.UUCP>, dave@sdeggo.UUCP (David L. Smith) writes: > Help! I'm going insane! I have MSC 4.0 with Make 4.02 and it is not > executing my makefiles properly. It doesn't seem to be paying any attention > to the dependencies list, instead it's just executing the commands in > the order it gets them. If I do make with the '/D' option, it shows > that it knows about the dependencies, it just seems to be ignoring them. I've had similar problems. It seemed to me that make wasn't checking the timestamp of the file. But check this out... sometimes it worked, and somtimes it didn't!!! Anyway, when running into the same situation on another machine, I checked the clock. It turned out my time and date clock was kaput. --------------------- "We thank you for your support" Mr. B.
crs@cpsc6b.cpsc6a.att.com (C. R. Seaman) (09/16/87)
In article <776@custom.UUCP>, boykin@custom.UUCP (Joseph Boykin) writes: < In article <1044@mtunb.ATT.COM>, dmt@mtunb.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) writes: < > In article <79@sdeggo.UUCP> dave@sdeggo.UUCP writes: < > >Help! I'm going insane! I have MSC 4.0 with Make 4.02 and it is not < > >executing my makefiles properly. < > < > Microsoft MAKE is a toy, compared with other MAKEs available. < > There are at least two good MAKEs for DOS that are remarkably close to < > UNIX MAKE. < < Just to add a plug... CSS Has a full version of MAKE which is < part of our PC/TOOLS product... A friend of mine has PC/TOOLS MAKE, and while it is a good implementation, I find the 'Shareware' NDMAKE more complete. It has handled EVERY UNIX(tm) makefile I've thrown at it, and it also has a VERY nice feature that builds 'response files' when the command line for LINK would get too long (> 128 characters). Finally, it has a 'MAKE.INI' file, that allows you to set default macros, suffixes, etc., so you can tailor it to your development environment (I use Turbo C). NDMAKE should be available on most BBS's, but I've heard that the 'new' version is incomplete until you send a donation. Personally, there's nothing wrong with the OLD version. -- Chris Seaman | o\ /o crs@cpsc6a.att.com <or> | || See "Attack of the Killer Smiley"! ..!ihnp4!cpsc6a!crs | \vvvvvv/ Coming Soon to a newsgroup near you! | \____/