I have some old X11/Motif source code with Imake files.
When I do xmkmf -a, the make program chokes on a line in then Makefile 
"MSimpleProgramTarget(program).
The error make: Fatal error in reader: Makefile, line 535: Unexpected 
end of line seen.
I've inserted a tab before the command inside the Makefile, but get the 
same error on the same line.


I've seen the same thing on OS X Leopard and also in OpenSuse 11.3.

It seems that something isn't set up correctly and I've looked all over 
Google with no real explanations or results.
Any ideas as to what I'm overlooking or doing wrong?

-- 
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).

On 2011-02-02 22:02:59 +0000, GreyCloud said:

> I have some old X11/Motif source code with Imake files.
> When I do xmkmf -a, the make program chokes on a line in then Makefile 
> "MSimpleProgramTarget(program).
> The error make: Fatal error in reader: Makefile, line 535: Unexpected 
> end of line seen.
> I've inserted a tab before the command inside the Makefile, but get the 
> same error on the same line.
> 
> 
> I've seen the same thing on OS X Leopard and also in OpenSuse 11.3.
> 
> It seems that something isn't set up correctly and I've looked all over 
> Google with no real explanations or results.
> Any ideas as to what I'm overlooking or doing wrong?

I've seen errors like that when the Makefile assumes it is being run by 
GNU make. (So *really* it ought to be called GNUMakefile, not 
Makefile.) Try gmake.
-- 
Chris

Chris Ridd wrote:
> On 2011-02-02 22:02:59 +0000, GreyCloud said:
> 
>> I have some old X11/Motif source code with Imake files.
>> When I do xmkmf -a, the make program chokes on a line in then Makefile 
>> "MSimpleProgramTarget(program).
>> The error make: Fatal error in reader: Makefile, line 535: Unexpected 
>> end of line seen.
>> I've inserted a tab before the command inside the Makefile, but get 
>> the same error on the same line.
>>
>>
>> I've seen the same thing on OS X Leopard and also in OpenSuse 11.3.
>>
>> It seems that something isn't set up correctly and I've looked all 
>> over Google with no real explanations or results.
>> Any ideas as to what I'm overlooking or doing wrong?
> 
> I've seen errors like that when the Makefile assumes it is being run by 
> GNU make. (So *really* it ought to be called GNUMakefile, not Makefile.) 
> Try gmake.

gmake?  I've seen that in other forums, but the end user still has the 
same problems.
The sun make should work, but it doesn't.  In another forum a reply was 
that it is a Motif problem.
I don't think that is correct in respect that Solaris has had CDE/Motif 
for a long time now.
In the book "CDE and Motif" by Mione in the appendix says that to 
compile the programs on disk,
just type in xmkmf and then make.  This doesn't work anymore.  On 
wikipedia, it is stated that
there are no documentation on the definitions (over a 1000).  So, I'm 
wondering if the whole UNIX
community has just dropped the idea of using xmkmf as an easy way to 
build programs that
are platform independent but use X11.


-- 
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).

GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> writes:
>gmake?  I've seen that in other forums, but the end user still has the 
>same problems.
>The sun make should work, but it doesn't.  In another forum a reply was 
>that it is a Motif problem.

Currently I have easy access to two Solaris environments. The Solaris Express
systems don't come with Motif, so thats out. But, in the Solaris 9
environment, I was able to download xmotd source, edit & configure the
Imakefile to compile with Motif and Solaris2, did my 'xmkmf', edited
the Makefile to get rid of the Sun Compiler dependacies since I was
using gcc, and compiled and linked it successfully.

So, thats about the same experience as I would expect back from the '90s.

>I don't think that is correct in respect that Solaris has had CDE/Motif 
>for a long time now.

Indeed. Up until Solaris 11 it would seem. 
FWIW: You mentioned OSX before, but OSX wouldn't come with Motif???
Looks like you cna get openmotif for OSX, but I don't know a single 
person that ever has put it on there. 

OpenSUSE probably came with lesstif, which is a whole new ball of wax. 
I would expect lesstif to *only* work in a gnuish environment. 
Or openmotif, which again, very tenuous for working correctly together.


>In the book "CDE and Motif" by Mione in the appendix says that to
>compile the programs on disk, just type in xmkmf and then make.  This
>doesn't work anymore.  On wikipedia, it is stated that there are no
>documentation on the definitions (over a 1000).  So, I'm wondering if
>the whole UNIX community has just dropped the idea of using xmkmf as
>an easy way to build programs that are platform independent but use X11.

I would say that there probably hasn't been a new Imakefile written
since the '90s. But it does work, at least in Solaris 9. I would
expect Motif/CDE to still work the same in Solaris 10. 

But, xmkmf was *never* a simple easy make/compile step. As described
by my steps with making xmotd on Solaris 9, it was typical to have to
edit both the Imakefile to set it up for what options you wanted, and
to fixup all the resulting Makefile with correct compiler and options
for the compiler you were using (or to patch up the xmkmf templates,
only to have them patched back over if there was an OS update touching them).

Due to many difficulties, most people doing anything with Motif usually
just wrote plain Makefiles. xmkmf was a minor player. In the end, so
was motif. 

Doug McIntyre wrote:
> GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> writes:
>> gmake?  I've seen that in other forums, but the end user still has the 
>> same problems.
>> The sun make should work, but it doesn't.  In another forum a reply was 
>> that it is a Motif problem.
> 
> Currently I have easy access to two Solaris environments. The Solaris Express
> systems don't come with Motif, so thats out. But, in the Solaris 9
> environment, I was able to download xmotd source, edit & configure the
> Imakefile to compile with Motif and Solaris2, did my 'xmkmf', edited
> the Makefile to get rid of the Sun Compiler dependacies since I was
> using gcc, and compiled and linked it successfully.
> 
> So, thats about the same experience as I would expect back from the '90s.
> 
>> I don't think that is correct in respect that Solaris has had CDE/Motif 
>> for a long time now.
> 
> Indeed. Up until Solaris 11 it would seem. 
> FWIW: You mentioned OSX before, but OSX wouldn't come with Motif???

Not from Apple, but from OpenMotif org.  They have OpenMotif binaries 
for the mac.
I can build a motif program with cc -o prog prog.c -lXm -lXt -lX11 after 
I set the LIBRARY_PATH variable into
the environment as well as CPATH for the necessary includes.

The whole idea is that the concept of using xmkmf is supposed to make it 
easy to transfer source from
one X11 environment to another without having to mess around with 
dependencies.  It appears that
the documentation on how to change your site.def and host.def files is 
long gone.
When wikipedia says that the over 1000 definitions used but no 
documentation can be found is rather
a sad note.  It was really a good concept.

> Looks like you cna get openmotif for OSX, but I don't know a single 
> person that ever has put it on there. 
> 

Heheh... ME!

> OpenSUSE probably came with lesstif, which is a whole new ball of wax. 
> I would expect lesstif to *only* work in a gnuish environment. 
> Or openmotif, which again, very tenuous for working correctly together.
> 

Their repositories have OpenMotif and it can be installed easily.
I've also compiled motif programs on OpenSuse and works pretty good.
But their imake program is also broken.  The makefile contains 
MSimpleProgramTarget(progname)
and make can't parse that and gives you the usual "unexpected end of 
line found. Stop."
Which means it doesn't know anything about that line which to make is 
gibberish.
The problem now stems back to imake.  Imake is supposed to provide the 
commands to compile the program
but obviously that is where it is broken.  So it then rests on whether 
any of the config files along with the Imake.tmpl,
Imake.rules, site.def, host.def or whatever are at fault or just imake 
itself.

> 
>> In the book "CDE and Motif" by Mione in the appendix says that to
>> compile the programs on disk, just type in xmkmf and then make.  This
>> doesn't work anymore.  On wikipedia, it is stated that there are no
>> documentation on the definitions (over a 1000).  So, I'm wondering if
>> the whole UNIX community has just dropped the idea of using xmkmf as
>> an easy way to build programs that are platform independent but use X11.
> 
> I would say that there probably hasn't been a new Imakefile written
> since the '90s. But it does work, at least in Solaris 9. I would
> expect Motif/CDE to still work the same in Solaris 10. 
> 

I've tried it under Solaris 8 and it was still broken.

> But, xmkmf was *never* a simple easy make/compile step. As described
> by my steps with making xmotd on Solaris 9, it was typical to have to
> edit both the Imakefile to set it up for what options you wanted, and
> to fixup all the resulting Makefile with correct compiler and options
> for the compiler you were using (or to patch up the xmkmf templates,
> only to have them patched back over if there was an OS update touching them).
> 
> Due to many difficulties, most people doing anything with Motif usually
> just wrote plain Makefiles. xmkmf was a minor player. In the end, so
> was motif. 
> 

Sad but true in regards to xmkmf.  There are a lot of legacy X11 
programs out there.
This is the short supplied Imakefile from Mione:

****************************************

	DEPLIBS = XmClientDepLibs
LOCAL_LIBRARIES = XmClientLibs

SRCS = abutton.c
OBJS = abutton.o

MSimpleProgramTarget(abutton)

DependTarget()

**********************************************

The compiler command line switches for a site should be inside the 
site.def or host.def file.
I understand that it is the site.def file that should be edited.
The only system that I know of that works correctly is an IBM RS6000 
system that runs X.
Strange that they never left X11R5.

Thanks for your input, at least I see what has happened now.

-- 
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).

GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> writes:
>The whole idea is that the concept of using xmkmf is supposed to make
>it easy to transfer source from one X11 environment to another
>without having to mess around with dependencies.  It appears that the
>documentation on how to change your site.def and host.def files is
>long gone.

I can't think of any single time I had an easier time dealing with an
Imakefile instead of a Makefile. At the time, in general you still had
to edit it to set such-and-such compile time options. Most systems at
the time were pretty simular, just flipping a few #define's back and
forth since you were already editing in there wasn't much different. 

>When wikipedia says that the over 1000 definitions used but no
>documentation can be found is rather a sad note.  It was really a
>good concept.

I never saw any documentation around in its hayday either. I suspect
the source code/release versions of the files was the documentation. 

There were other systems in use trying to do the same thing. 
ie. Makefiles/smake. Some other home grown systems, like the one ncftp
bundled into their source. 

Doug McIntyre wrote:
> I never saw any documentation around in its hayday either. I suspect
> the source code/release versions of the files was the documentation. 

There was an O'Reilly book on imake.

-- 

"I'm a doctor, not a mechanic." Dr Leonard McCoy <mccoy@ncc1701.starfleet.fed>
"I'm a mechanic, not a doctor." Volker Borchert  <v_borchert@despammed.com>

Doug McIntyre wrote:
> GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> writes:
>> The whole idea is that the concept of using xmkmf is supposed to make
>> it easy to transfer source from one X11 environment to another
>> without having to mess around with dependencies.  It appears that the
>> documentation on how to change your site.def and host.def files is
>> long gone.
> 
> I can't think of any single time I had an easier time dealing with an
> Imakefile instead of a Makefile. At the time, in general you still had
> to edit it to set such-and-such compile time options. Most systems at
> the time were pretty simular, just flipping a few #define's back and
> forth since you were already editing in there wasn't much different. 
> 

I'm getting the feeling that I'd need some guide of guidance as to how 
to set up
one of the conf files correctly for Solaris 10.  Odd that Sun didn't set 
things
up correctly for their customers in case they had to build an old legacy 
program.
I've found the same problem in Solaris 8.
Make always choked on MSimpleProgramTarget that imake put into the makefile.
I suspect that imake just didn't have the correct settings or defines to 
handle this correctly.

>> When wikipedia says that the over 1000 definitions used but no
>> documentation can be found is rather a sad note.  It was really a
>> good concept.
> 
> I never saw any documentation around in its hayday either. I suspect
> the source code/release versions of the files was the documentation. 
> 
> There were other systems in use trying to do the same thing. 
> ie. Makefiles/smake. Some other home grown systems, like the one ncftp
> bundled into their source. 

I have heard that a new build system by SCONS is now out, but I will see 
if they have solved
building programs easier on different platforms.
What is missing currently in the makefile is the lack of any compiler 
commands that should've
been inserted into the makefile.  It isn't that big of a deal since all 
I really have to do
is cc -o prog prog.c -lXm -lXt -lX11 -lm and the programs get built 
anyway.  It is that my
curiosity got peaked.


-- 
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).

Volker Borchert wrote:
> Doug McIntyre wrote:
>> I never saw any documentation around in its hayday either. I suspect
>> the source code/release versions of the files was the documentation. 
> 
> There was an O'Reilly book on imake.
> 

I have thought about getting that book and looked a bit into the book at 
Amazon.
Tho I've been told by Apple that it is better to just upgrade your build 
system...
whatever that means.

-- 
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).

On 2011-02-04 23:08:41 +0000, GreyCloud said:

> Volker Borchert wrote:
>> Doug McIntyre wrote:
>>> I never saw any documentation around in its hayday either. I suspect
>>> the source code/release versions of the files was the documentation.
>> 
>> There was an O'Reilly book on imake.
>> 
> 
> I have thought about getting that book and looked a bit into the book 
> at Amazon.
> Tho I've been told by Apple that it is better to just upgrade your 
> build system...
> whatever that means.

I suspect that just meant "Don't use imake". Use something else, anything else.

Sometimes I wonder if cc -c *.c isn't the way to go... :-)
-- 
Chris

On 2/4/2011 6:39 PM, Chris Ridd wrote:
> On 2011-02-04 23:08:41 +0000, GreyCloud said:
>
>> Volker Borchert wrote:
>>> Doug McIntyre wrote:
>>>> I never saw any documentation around in its hayday either. I suspect
>>>> the source code/release versions of the files was the documentation.
>>>
>>> There was an O'Reilly book on imake.
>>>
>>
>> I have thought about getting that book and looked a bit into the book
>> at Amazon.
>> Tho I've been told by Apple that it is better to just upgrade your
>> build system...
>> whatever that means.
>
> I suspect that just meant "Don't use imake". Use something else,
> anything else.
>
> Sometimes I wonder if cc -c *.c isn't the way to go... :-)

I don't think that I've *ever* used imake.  make, on the other hand is 
very handy when you are building a complex piece of software.  If you 
are just trying to build "Hello world!" it's hardly worth the trouble.

GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> writes:
>gmake?  I've seen that in other forums, but the end user still has the 
>same problems.
>The sun make should work, but it doesn't.  In another forum a reply was 
>that it is a Motif problem.
>I don't think that is correct in respect that Solaris has had CDE/Motif 
>for a long time now.
>In the book "CDE and Motif" by Mione in the appendix says that to 
>compile the programs on disk,
>just type in xmkmf and then make.  This doesn't work anymore.  On 
>wikipedia, it is stated that
>there are no documentation on the definitions (over a 1000).  So, I'm 
>wondering if the whole UNIX
>community has just dropped the idea of using xmkmf as an easy way to 
>build programs that
>are platform independent but use X11.


Why don't you email me the source you are trying to compile and I can
try it out on Solaris 9/Solaris 10 for you. 

I suppose I could even put OpenMotif on my Macs if you want. I'll make
it work for you. 

I've been trying to tell you that the whole Unix community barely ever
used Imakefile to being with. It was a specialized tool for some Motif
programs. Even back in the back in the day, Motif/CDE wasn't exactly
the strong front that OpenGroup would lead you to believe, even if it
"won" the desktop wars over OpenWindows. 

In article <4d4cdc1b$0$87580$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>,
Doug McIntyre  <merlyn@geeks.org> wrote:
>GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> writes:
>>gmake?  I've seen that in other forums, but the end user still has the 
>>same problems.
>>The sun make should work, but it doesn't.  In another forum a reply was 
>>that it is a Motif problem.
>>I don't think that is correct in respect that Solaris has had CDE/Motif 
>>for a long time now.
>>In the book "CDE and Motif" by Mione in the appendix says that to 
>>compile the programs on disk,
>>just type in xmkmf and then make.  This doesn't work anymore.  On 
>>wikipedia, it is stated that
>>there are no documentation on the definitions (over a 1000).  So, I'm 
>>wondering if the whole UNIX
>>community has just dropped the idea of using xmkmf as an easy way to 
>>build programs that
>>are platform independent but use X11.
>
>
>Why don't you email me the source you are trying to compile and I can
>try it out on Solaris 9/Solaris 10 for you. 
>
>I suppose I could even put OpenMotif on my Macs if you want. I'll make
>it work for you. 
>
>I've been trying to tell you that the whole Unix community barely ever
>used Imakefile to being with. It was a specialized tool for some Motif
>programs. Even back in the back in the day, Motif/CDE wasn't exactly
>the strong front that OpenGroup would lead you to believe, even if it
>"won" the desktop wars over OpenWindows. 

My memory is that imake was configured and installed by the base X11
distribution whenever you built it.  Motif may have used it, but it predates
Motif.

It was always a problem on Suns because all the stock configurations
supplied by Sun assumed a Sun C compiler build environment and most everyone
was using gcc instead which meant the flags were always wrong.

			Ted
-- 
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

Chris Ridd wrote:
> On 2011-02-04 23:08:41 +0000, GreyCloud said:
> 
>> Volker Borchert wrote:
>>> Doug McIntyre wrote:
>>>> I never saw any documentation around in its hayday either. I suspect
>>>> the source code/release versions of the files was the documentation.
>>>
>>> There was an O'Reilly book on imake.
>>>
>>
>> I have thought about getting that book and looked a bit into the book 
>> at Amazon.
>> Tho I've been told by Apple that it is better to just upgrade your 
>> build system...
>> whatever that means.
> 
> I suspect that just meant "Don't use imake". Use something else, 
> anything else.
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if cc -c *.c isn't the way to go... :-)

Which is what I find is much easier.  :-))

But I did find the problem... Sun didn't include Motif.cf, Motif.rules, 
or Motif. tmpl.
Xorg defines these that are needed for doing work with Motif programs.
I don't have Solaris 8 anymore to check this out tho.

Even tho the motif includes and libs are installed, it is much easier to do
cc -o prog prog.c -lXm -lXt -lX11 -lm under Solaris 10.

I tested xmkmf out by creating a very simple Imakefile.

SimpleProgramTarget(hello)

where hello is the very easy hello world program.
And lo and behold the xmkmf -a worked fine and created hello* in the 
current directory.


-- 
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).

Doug McIntyre wrote:
> GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> writes:
>> gmake?  I've seen that in other forums, but the end user still has the 
>> same problems.
>> The sun make should work, but it doesn't.  In another forum a reply was 
>> that it is a Motif problem.
>> I don't think that is correct in respect that Solaris has had CDE/Motif 
>> for a long time now.
>> In the book "CDE and Motif" by Mione in the appendix says that to 
>> compile the programs on disk,
>> just type in xmkmf and then make.  This doesn't work anymore.  On 
>> wikipedia, it is stated that
>> there are no documentation on the definitions (over a 1000).  So, I'm 
>> wondering if the whole UNIX
>> community has just dropped the idea of using xmkmf as an easy way to 
>> build programs that
>> are platform independent but use X11.
> 
> 
> Why don't you email me the source you are trying to compile and I can
> try it out on Solaris 9/Solaris 10 for you. 
> 
> I suppose I could even put OpenMotif on my Macs if you want. I'll make
> it work for you. 
> 
> I've been trying to tell you that the whole Unix community barely ever
> used Imakefile to being with. It was a specialized tool for some Motif
> programs. Even back in the back in the day, Motif/CDE wasn't exactly
> the strong front that OpenGroup would lead you to believe, even if it
> "won" the desktop wars over OpenWindows. 

That is true.

Unfortunately, DOD has invested millions$ in X based programs and has 
given grants
to many universities.  One of which I remember had to do with a program 
from a university
in Georgia that did structural analysis.  We had to incorporate this 
program for an
earthquake analysis for the Puget Sound region on all the waterfront 
structures such as piers,
drydocks, etc. and find out how well these structures would hold up to 
various richter numbers.

It was rather strange that a few years after the analysis a richter 6.9 
hit the Puget Sound region
and the analysis proved accurate in that the critical structures would 
hold up.  Some of the legacy
programs are still valuable.
Unfortunately, the solaris 10 distro lacks the Motif.tmpl, Motif.cf, and 
Motif.rules files.
But other programs I just found out do work under xmkmf that do not use 
Motif.


-- 
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).

On 2011-02-05 18:25:18 +0000, GreyCloud said:

> Chris Ridd wrote:
>> Sometimes I wonder if cc -c *.c isn't the way to go... :-)
> 
> Which is what I find is much easier.  :-))

Although it was a facetious suggestion, it *does* have some technical 
merit in that you can enable interprocedural optimization, ie -xipo.

> 
> But I did find the problem... Sun didn't include Motif.cf, Motif.rules, 
> or Motif. tmpl.
> Xorg defines these that are needed for doing work with Motif programs.

I was wondering if X.org had removed imake support at some point 
post-Xsun and since XFree86 became popular. I'm a little surprised they 
haven't.

-- 
Chris

On 2011-02-05 18:41:43 +0000, Chris Ridd said:

> On 2011-02-05 18:25:18 +0000, GreyCloud said:
> 
>> Chris Ridd wrote:
>>> Sometimes I wonder if cc -c *.c isn't the way to go... :-)
>> 
>> Which is what I find is much easier.  :-))
> 
> Although it was a facetious suggestion, it *does* have some technical 
> merit in that you can enable interprocedural optimization, ie -xipo.

Or am I thinking of -xcrossfile?
-- 
Chris

On 2/4/2011 9:11 PM, Doug McIntyre wrote:
> [...]
> I've been trying to tell you that the whole Unix community barely ever
> used Imakefile to being with. It was a specialized tool for some Motif
> programs. Even back in the back in the day, Motif/CDE wasn't exactly
> the strong front that OpenGroup would lead you to believe, even if it
> "won" the desktop wars over OpenWindows. 

Imakefiles, as you wrote, haven't been widely used.  I can recall only
a few over the past several decades that had one.

One program I've been using for several decades, XEphem, is Motif-based
and it, too, only has a Makefile.  Check out their webpage:

    <http://www.clearskyinstitute.com/xephem/>

and note item 2 per:

" 2. The scientific-grade interactive astronomical ephemeris software
"    package for UNIX-like* systems. Written in C, X11 and Motif with
"    full source code freely available, easily ported to systems
"    including:
"
"    * Linux
"    * FreeBSD
"    * MacOS X, PPC and Intel (screen shot) and (review)
"    * Solaris
"    * AIX
"    * HP-UX
"    * OpenVMS

I have XEphem running on all of my FreeBSD, Linux and Solaris systems and
even on my Windows systems under Cygwin <http://thadlabs.com/PIX/xephem.jpg>.

On Feb 5, 10:47=A0am, Chris Ridd <chrisr...@mac.com> wrote:
> On 2011-02-05 18:41:43 +0000, Chris Ridd said:
>
> > On 2011-02-05 18:25:18 +0000, GreyCloud said:
>
> >> Chris Ridd wrote:
> >>> Sometimes I wonder if cc -c *.c isn't the way to go... :-)
>
> >> Which is what I find is much easier. =A0:-))
>
> > Although it was a facetious suggestion, it *does* have some technical
> > merit in that you can enable interprocedural optimization, ie -xipo.
>
> Or am I thinking of -xcrossfile?
> --
> Chris

With cc -c *.c how do you compile both 32 and 64-bit binaries on the
same platform :->>

On 2/6/2011 4:28 PM, david@smooth1.co.uk wrote:
> On Feb 5, 10:47 am, Chris Ridd<chrisr...@mac.com>  wrote:
>> On 2011-02-05 18:41:43 +0000, Chris Ridd said:
>>
>>> On 2011-02-05 18:25:18 +0000, GreyCloud said:
>>
>>>> Chris Ridd wrote:
>>>>> Sometimes I wonder if cc -c *.c isn't the way to go... :-)
>>
>>>> Which is what I find is much easier.  :-))
>>
>>> Although it was a facetious suggestion, it *does* have some technical
>>> merit in that you can enable interprocedural optimization, ie -xipo.
>>
>> Or am I thinking of -xcrossfile?
>> --
>> Chris
>
> With cc -c *.c how do you compile both 32 and 64-bit binaries on the
> same platform :->>

It seems to me that this is a question answered by the man page for cc!
Given the size of the cc man page, I'd suggest using grep to find which 
of the 100 or so pages contain references to 64 bit.

Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 2/4/2011 9:11 PM, Doug McIntyre wrote:
>> [...]
>> I've been trying to tell you that the whole Unix community barely ever
>> used Imakefile to being with. It was a specialized tool for some Motif
>> programs. Even back in the back in the day, Motif/CDE wasn't exactly
>> the strong front that OpenGroup would lead you to believe, even if it
>> "won" the desktop wars over OpenWindows. 
> 
> Imakefiles, as you wrote, haven't been widely used.  I can recall only
> a few over the past several decades that had one.
> 
> One program I've been using for several decades, XEphem, is Motif-based
> and it, too, only has a Makefile.  Check out their webpage:
> 
>     <http://www.clearskyinstitute.com/xephem/>
> 
> and note item 2 per:
> 
> " 2. The scientific-grade interactive astronomical ephemeris software
> "    package for UNIX-like* systems. Written in C, X11 and Motif with
> "    full source code freely available, easily ported to systems
> "    including:
> "
> "    * Linux
> "    * FreeBSD
> "    * MacOS X, PPC and Intel (screen shot) and (review)
> "    * Solaris
> "    * AIX
> "    * HP-UX
> "    * OpenVMS
> 
> I have XEphem running on all of my FreeBSD, Linux and Solaris systems and
> even on my Windows systems under Cygwin <http://thadlabs.com/PIX/xephem.jpg>.

I've bookmarked this for later perusal and it does look very interesting.
I've always wanted to get a good telescope with outside dome, but I 
never had the time
to try.


-- 
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).

On 2011-02-06 21:28:17 +0000, david@smooth1.co.uk said:

> On Feb 5, 10:47�am, Chris Ridd <chrisr...@mac.com> wrote:
>> On 2011-02-05 18:41:43 +0000, Chris Ridd said:
>> 
>>> On 2011-02-05 18:25:18 +0000, GreyCloud said:
>> 
>>>> Chris Ridd wrote:
>>>>> Sometimes I wonder if cc -c *.c isn't the way to go... :-)
>> 
>>>> Which is what I find is much easier. �:-))
>> 
>>> Although it was a facetious suggestion, it *does* have some technical
>>> merit in that you can enable interprocedural optimization, ie -xipo.
>> 
>> Or am I thinking of -xcrossfile?
>> --
>> Chris
> 
> With cc -c *.c how do you compile both 32 and 64-bit binaries on the
> same platform :->>

You have to compile the sources twice, just like you do at the moment :-)
-- 
Chris