On 18 December 2010 11:33, Greatwolf wrote: > > Thank you for the suggestion though unfortunately not every build system > can accomodate easily what you propose. Sometimes I do infact pass all > the source files in at once when I want a full rebuild. > > Still at any rate, in my experience all the other compilers I've tried > (and I've tried quite a few of them), they do output some kind of > information on the file currently compiled. This includes, MSVC > compilers, Borland compilers and even Digital Mars compiler. The convention for unix commands is to print nothing except on error. http://catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html#id2878450 > Other times this is handy if for example, I don't want make to output the > commandlines being used in all it's verbosity, I would pass -s to not > echo the command. However, I would still like to see the status of the > files as it compiles. This seems silly to me. You have a tool which can print what it's doing, but you want to silence it and have another tool print it. You could just write make rules like this: %.o: %.c @ echo "Compiling $<" @ $(CC) -c -o $@ $<
