[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: serial vs parallel for ar
From: |
Paul D. Smith |
Subject: |
RE: serial vs parallel for ar |
Date: |
Thu, 18 May 2006 11:11:37 -0400 |
%% "PATTON, BILLY \(SBCSI\)" <address@hidden> writes:
pb> Here is the skeleton of what I'm doing
pb> # create a .a file empty
pb> AR_CREATE = if [ ! -f $(PRD_TREE)/$(1)/$(2)/lib/lib$(2).a ] ; then \
pb> $(AR) $(AR_CREATE_OPT)
pb> $(PRD_TREE)/$(1)/$(2)/lib/lib$(2).a ; \
pb> $$(CHMOD) $(PRD_TREE)/$(1)/$(2)/lib/lib$(2).a ; \
pb> fi
pb> # add a file to a archive
pb> AR_ADD = $(NM) $@ | grep "main.*extern|entry.*CODE" > /dev/null ; \
pb> if [ $$? -ne 0 ] ; then $(AR) $(AR_OPT) $(LIB) $@ > /dev/null ;
pb> fi
pb> # short hand to create dependencies
pb> MKDEP = $(MAKEDEPEND) -proj $(1) -bb $(2) -ifile $$< $$(INCLUDE)
pb> # compile .c files to .o
pb> COMP_CC = @$$(CC) $$(CCFLAGS) $$(INCLUDE) -o $$@ -c $$< ; \
pb> $(MKDEP) ; $(AR_CREATE); $$(AR_ADD)
I don't understand why you want to put .o's into the archive one at a
time. Why not do it the same way the linker does, and have only one
invocation of "ar"? That is the easy way to make sure you don't have
conflicts even with -j, and it will even be more efficient since you
have only one invocation of ar instead of one per .o.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <address@hidden> Find some GNU make tips at:
http://www.gnu.org http://make.paulandlesley.org
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
- RE: serial vs parallel for ar, (continued)
- RE: serial vs parallel for ar, PATTON, BILLY \(SBCSI\), 2006/05/18
- RE: serial vs parallel for ar, Paul D. Smith, 2006/05/18
- Re: serial vs parallel for ar, Alexey Neyman, 2006/05/18
- Re: serial vs parallel for ar, Alexey Neyman, 2006/05/18
- Re: serial vs parallel for ar, David Boyce, 2006/05/18
- RE: serial vs parallel for ar, PATTON, BILLY \(SBCSI\), 2006/05/18
Re: serial vs parallel for ar, Paul D. Smith, 2006/05/18
- RE: serial vs parallel for ar, PATTON, BILLY \(SBCSI\), 2006/05/18
- RE: serial vs parallel for ar, Paul D. Smith, 2006/05/18
- RE: serial vs parallel for ar, PATTON, BILLY \(SBCSI\), 2006/05/18
- RE: serial vs parallel for ar,
Paul D. Smith <=
- RE: serial vs parallel for ar, PATTON, BILLY \(SBCSI\), 2006/05/18
- RE: serial vs parallel for ar, Paul D. Smith, 2006/05/18
RE: serial vs parallel for ar, Cesar Crusius, 2006/05/19