compiling using gprof

**Sander** · 05-27-2008

Originally Posted by CornedBee

I'm fairly sure, yes.

There's other things wrong with the Makefile, too, such as passing the CPPFLAGS only to linking, but not to what you thought was compiling.

You shouldn't even need the pattern rule. It's built in. Just set the CFLAGS correctly. Set LD to g++ to get C++ linking.

I took the liberty of looking it up:

Suffix Rules

Also here:

Managing Projects with GNU Make, Third Edition (look on page 24). The book does state: "Suffix rules were make’s original means for writing general rules. GNU make includes support for suffix rules, but they are considered obsolete having been replaced by pattern rules that are clearer and more general."

I agree with your remarks on what's broken with the Makefile, though.

--
Computer Programming: An Introduction for the Scientifically Inclined

**force of will** · 05-27-2008

don't you need a intruction

Code:

 .SUFIXXES: .o .c

to tell make to look out for .c and .o files ?

as to

Code:

 .c.o

im 110% sure its a suffixe rule that "teachs" make how to create a .o file from a .c
but you're instruction is not creating a .o file since i think you forgot the -c flag in

Code:

.c.o:
	gcc  -Wall -pg $<

should be

Code:

.c.o:
	gcc  -Wall -c -pg $<

Thread: compiling using gprof

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Hybrid View

Similar Threads

Can gprof go into each self-defined function?

Newbie Compiling Problem

Screwy Linker Error - VC2005

Problem Compiling

Compiling