Batch builder (11)

1 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2007-01-25 08:10 ID:WWEwoPcX

I'm looking for a nice free batch builder to use to compile libraries. I don't want to spend ~$500 on Microsoft's overrated piece of crap. What do you guys suggest?

2 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2007-01-25 14:30 ID:Heaven

What's a batch builder?

3 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2007-01-26 03:14 ID:Heaven

.bat?

4 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2007-01-26 06:00 ID:WWEwoPcX

Yes, .bat files. Eclipse can't even do this properly (much less if it can do it at all.

5 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2007-01-27 00:35 ID:Heaven

Why would you need a batch file to compile a library? Is it something Make can't handle?

6 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2007-01-27 02:11 ID:WWEwoPcX

I'm not running on a UNIX system, sadly, so make isn't an option either.

7 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2007-01-27 07:26 ID:Heaven

I usually do my C dev on windows. I've always used make.

There are any number of ports out there. Maybe they can be of use?

8 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2007-01-27 14:30 ID:XWBWp/W6

MSVC has a make implementation, even though it may be a bit broken, and you'd think MSVC itself would be able to compile a library even without that.

If you're making batch files to compile something, you are most likely doing something wrong.

9 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2007-01-27 17:21 ID:Heaven

Just use Makefiles... batch is so 15 years ago

10 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2007-01-27 19:27 ID:6aQAC/CM

Of course make has the issue where you end up spending five hours tweaking your Makefiles to make things compile with the least amount of processor time. Not that it's an undesirable goal, but...

Just be sure to go with GNU make. Any bastardization present in MSVC is bound to be far, far worse.

11 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2007-01-27 21:04 ID:IoKuC9Gz

www.cmake.org?

Return Entire thread Last 50 posts
This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.