Re: how to tell gnatmake to send executables to a different directory when compiling multi source?

[Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>]

Vasiliy Molostov wrote on comp.lang.ada:
> Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> писал(а) в своём письме Mon,  
>> Don't you see how wrong this approach is?
> 
> Perhaps it is not ideal, but exists.

Yes. Just like the devil; he exists only because man created him.

>> Add to that that Make dependencies do not take compiler flags
>> into account (gnatmake does) and are therefore incomplete.
>> For example:
>> 
>>
>> all: foo
>> foo: a.o b.o
>>         gcc -o $@ $<
>>
>> 
>> is not good enough, even when supplemented by generated source
>> dependencies. Why? Because when CFLAGS contains -O3 or some
>> explicit option, cross-unit inlining comes into the picture,
>> so a.o does not depend on "just" b.o, it depends on a b.o
>> compiled with the *same compiler options*.  Make simply does
>> not capture this dependency information.
> 
> You can place compiler options into a separate dependant file.

I prefer to use gnatmake which already does the job.

>> The constructive movement forward is: use *existing* better
>> tools. If you still *must* use make, do that non-recursively.
> 
> *can*. The choice is mine, not your.

Sure.  You can choose inferior tools, you can choose to shoot
yourself in the foot, you can choose to ignore the devil, you
can choose to spend your days tracking dependencies by hand
and your nights debugging the ensuing dependency problems and
you can choose to perpetuate the myth that glaring bugs in
released software are a natural and unavoidable thing.  But
that will not make the devil disappear; it will have the
opposite effect.

And *I* choose to fight the devil.  The first step is to
know where he is.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.