pereges wrote:
> Do you see anything wrong about this method ? For eg. I write a shell
> script a.sh containing :
>
> cc -o test file1.c file2.c file3.c
>
> and then execute the shell script ( sh a.sh) to compile and create the
> executable. What is the difference between this method and writing a
> make file ?
Not really topical here, try comp.unix.programmer

But: using a makefile would ensure that the target gets build afresh
whenever the source has changed (i.e is newer than the target), a shell
script would always compile, unconditionally, regardless whether it is
acctually neccessary.

Bye, Jojo