How to use POMAKE?

[TimoVJL]

3) I understand I can compile only individual files; I was hoping for a way to easily compile (only) a bunch of files which are packaged into a project.  I was hoping for a magic setting in the project file to indicate 'compile only'.

create static library project and insert to AR flag -? in project options -> Macros tab ARFLAGS.
Then it shows only help without doing anything else.

[migf1]

Thanks again for the suggestions and advice...
...
2) Some time ago, I tried a later version of Pelles C (maybe 5.0) and thought it slow.  Since I really don't need any of the newer compiler features (focused on desktop apps), I'm happy with 4.5.
3) I understand I can compile only individual files; I was hoping for a way to easily compile (only) a bunch of files which are packaged into a project.  I was hoping for a magic setting in the project file to indicate 'compile only'.

I'm not sure what you mean, but invoking pocc cc without any with the command-line flag /c sounds like doing what you are asking for.

For example...

Code: [Select]

cc /c foo1.c foo2.c foo3.c

will produce only the object files foo1.obj, foo2.obj and foo3.obj without doing anything else (it will just compile them).

4) Thanks for suggestion gnu-make but I'm trying to stay within the boundaries of the Pelles IDE.  And with GUI based tools.
5) I am working on a large, complicated, and very old MSDOS / Unix project which I hope to convert to Windows.  Naturally it is now a "console" program so I'm using the IDE to get it working in that state.  Eventually, I'll convert it to a "Win32" program with all the attendant changes.  There are many source files and the finished result has an option to create both a static and dynamic linked versions of the programs.  There are also 'lib' files plus other additional files to be compiled and linked with some of the routines.  I've been reviewing an old make file trying to figure out what modules are linked with the 'lib' files and which have to have several source modules all linked together.  It's a fun, learning project, which I hope to be able to use with my later programming efforts.  I have a workspace with 19 projects, sharing the same source files, and which seems to satisfy most of the various compile and link edit configurations.

Thanks again.     

I honestly believe you're making things harder than they should be. From what you have described so far it seems so much easier to build your targets from the command line, by using either pomake or gnu-make (chances are you won't even need gnu-make).

After all, IDEs do nothing more than providing a camouflage for the command-line tools. Even not taking advantage of all their features. In the case of pomake, for example, the IDE is documented to provide partial support of pomake's full potential...

POMAKE reference

Pelles make utility is used for building projects from the command line. POMAKE uses the same file format as the IDE. The make file may use either OEM, UTF-8, or UTF-16LE encoding (from version 5.0).


The IDE only support a subset of the POMAKE syntax, for example no preprocessor directives.
...

EDIT:

Replaced pocc with cc (I left the original text striked-through)

[CommonTater]

Hello again Phil...
A couple of points if I may.

1) XP is a fine OS probably the best Microsoft has ever produced.  It'll be around for quite a while yet and most hardware manufacturers still issue XP drivers, so no worries about the OS... I was wondering, given your mention of MS-DOS if perhaps we were talking about Win95 or such, in which case you'd be basically screwed for doing anything useful.

2) I use the 7.0 compiler on XP every day, no worries.  Yes it is a bit slower building projects but the result is also a far better Executable than 4.5 created.  The code is far more optimal and often smaller than the 4.5 code... also the new C-11 standard has a whole mess of very nice new bells and whistles that I'm already starting to use as a matter of course.

3) Sorry ... no compile only flag.  But then, nobody really makes much use of OBJ files directly anymore.  When libaries of accumulated function calls are needed we almost always use either .LIB or .DLL libraries rather than .OBJs... Also modern compilers are smart.  If you compile a source page the OBJ file sits in the Output folder and will not be recompiled unless you change the source.  When linking to EXE DLL or LIB targets any up to date objs be used as is.

5) Sounds like a lot of work to me   One thing you should know is that Console proggies do not convert to GUI projects with any ease at all.  The two operating scenarios are so totally different that you almost always end up doing a full re-write to cross the gulf between them.  The reason for this is that Console programs tend to be single tasking and most sit and wait for user input where Windows programs are event driven, relying upon a message gueue and "tosser" for their behaviours.  Such totally different operating concepts do not translate at all well...

I don't mean to discourage you, but you should know what you're up against...  Go take a look at TheForger's Windows API tutorial.  As you scan through the code samples and lessons you will initially find yourself wondering what language you're looking at... Yes it's C... but it ain't nothing like most people are used to in console environments.
 

[PhilG57]

Thanks again to all for their thoughts and comments.

Microsoft sold over 400 million copies of XP and I figure if my programs work on XP, they should easily work on Win Vista, Win 7, etc. with no problem.  Yes, I understand that philosophy precludes, with both the OS and the IDE, being able to take advantage of the latest and greatest features.

I do like very much the Pelles IDE as it is fast and easy to use.  I'm going to stay strictly with GUI tools and thanks to the suggestions in this thread, have learned some more about how to make it do what I want it to.

This old program supposedly ran on DOS, Win95, WinNT, and Unix but I have no way to test that capability.  I'm well aware of the differences between Windows and earlier programs and the effort required to convert it to an event based system.  This old program, for all its complexity, has pretty simple functionality.  So right now, I'm toying with creating a Windows "shell" which will call the various modules of the old program based on user menu choices.  Then later on, I can convert the whole thing to a 'real' Windows program.

But I'm ahead of myself.  So for now, I'll continue to plug away.  Probably later on, I'll have more questions for all you forum members.  Many thanks to all for helping...

[CommonTater]

No worries Phil... always glad to spout an opinion

[Bitbeisser]

Thanks again to all for their thoughts and comments.

Microsoft sold over 400 million copies of XP and I figure if my programs work on XP, they should easily work on Win Vista, Win 7, etc. with no problem. 

And along comes Windows 8... 

Ralf