I have a Makefile with user-specified input files in the variable INPUT_FILES.
For each input file, I need to create an input file prime.
Some notes:
Each input file can have an arbitrary file location
It is reasonable to assume there aren't duplicate filenames
Each output file needs to go into $(OUTPUT_DIR)
My basic strategy has been to generate the set of targets based INPUT_FILES and then try to determine which input file is the actual dependency of the target.
A few variations I've tried:
# Create a list of targets
OUTPUT_FILES = $(foreach file,$(notdir $(INPUT_FILES)),$(OUTPUT_DIR)/$(file))
# This doesn't work, because all input files are dependencies of each output file
$(OUTPUT_FILES): $(INPUT FILES)
program --input $^ --output $#
# This doesn't work because $# hasn't been resolved yet
$(OUTPUT_FILES): $(filter,$(notdir $#),$(INPUT FILES))
program --input $^ --output $#
# This doesn't work, I think because $# is evaluated too late
.SECONDEXPANSION:
$(OUTPUT_FILES): $(filter,$(notdir $$#),$(INPUT FILES))
program --input $^ --output $#
# This doesn't work either
.SECONDEXPANSION:
$(OUTPUT_FILES): $$(filter,$(notdir $#),$(INPUT FILES))
program --input $^ --output $#
I've looked into static pattern rules as well, but I'm not sure if it can help with what I need.
In your case .SECONDEXPANSION: works because you can use make functions (filter) to compute the prerequisite of each output file. In other circumstances it could be impossible. But there is another GNU make feature that can be used in cases like yours: if you use GNU make you can programmatically instantiate make statements using foreach-eval-call. Just remember that the macro that is used as the statements pattern gets expanded twice, reason why you must double some $ signs (more on this later):
OUTPUT_DIR := dir
OUTPUT_FILES := $(addprefix $(OUTPUT_DIR)/,$(notdir $(INPUT_FILES)))
.PHONY: all
all: $(OUTPUT_FILES)
# The macro used as statements pattern where $(1) is the input file
define MY_RULE
$(1)-output-file := $(OUTPUT_DIR)/$$(notdir $(1))
$$($(1)-output-file): $(1)
#echo program --input $$^ --output $$#
endef
$(foreach i,$(INPUT_FILES),$(eval $(call MY_RULE,$(i))))
Demo:
$ mkdir -p a/a b
$ touch a/a/a b/b c
$ make INPUT_FILES="a/a/a b/b c"
program --input a/a/a --output dir/a
program --input b/b --output dir/b
program --input c --output dir/c
Explanation:
When make parses the Makefile it expands $(foreach ...): it iterates over all words of $(INPUT_FILES), for each it assigns the word to variable i and expands $(eval $(call MY_RULE,$(i))) in this context. So for word foo/bar/baz it expands $(eval $(call MY_RULE,$(i))) with i = foo/bar/baz.
$(eval PARAMETER) expands PARAMETER and instantiates the result as new make statements. So, for foo/bar/baz, make expands $(call MY_RULE,$(i)) with i = foo/bar/baz and considers the result as regular make statements. The expansion of $(eval ...) has no other effect, the result is the empty string. This is why in our case $(foreach ...) expands as the empty string. But it does something: create new make statements dynamically for each input file.
$(call NAME,PARAMETER) expands PARAMETER, assigns it to temporary variable 1 and expands the value of make variable NAME in this context. So, $(call MY_RULE,$(i)) with i = foo/bar/baz expands as the expanded value of variable MY_RULE with $(1) = foo/bar/baz:
foo/bar/baz-output-file := dir/$(notdir foo/bar/baz)
$(foo/bar/baz-output-file): foo/bar/baz
#echo program --input $^ --output $#
which is what is instantiated by eval as new make statements. Note that we had a first expansion here and the $$ became $. Note also that call can have more parameters: $(call NAME,P1,P2) will do the same with $(1) = P1 and $(2) = P2.
When make parses these new statements (as any other statements) it expands them (second expansion) and finally adds the following to its list of variables:
foo/bar/baz-output-file := dir/baz
and the following to its list of rules:
dir/baz: foo/bar/baz
#echo program --input $^ --output $#
This may look complicated but it is not if you remember that the make statements added by eval are expanded twice. First when $(eval ...) is parsed and expanded by make, and a second time when make parses and expands the added statements. This is why you frequently need to escape the first of these two expansions in your macro definition by using $$ instead of $.
And it is so powerful that it is good to know.
When asking for help please provide some kind of actual example names so we can understand more clearly what you have. It also helps us use terminology which is not confusing.
You really want to use $< in your recipes, not $^, I expect.
IF your "input files" are truly input-only (that is, they are not themselves generated by other make rules) then you can easily solve this problem with VPATH.
Just use this:
VPATH := $(sort $(dir $(INPUT_FILES)))
$(OUTPUT_DIR)/% : %
program --input $< --output $#
I finally found a permutation that works - I think the problem was forgetting that filter requires a % for matching patterns. The rule is:
.SECONDEXPANSION:
$(OUTPUT_FILES): $$(filter %$$(#F),$(INPUT_FILES))
program --input $^ --output $#
I also realized I can use #F (equivalent to $$(notdir $$#)) for cleaner syntax.
The rule gets the target's filename on its second expansion ($$(#F)) and then gets the input file (with path) that corresponds to it on second expansion ($$(filter %$$(#F),$(INPUT_FILES))).
Of course, the rule only works if filenames are unique. If someone has a cleaner solution, feel free to post.
Related
I'm trying to get Make to build some data analysis, where there are file lists controlled by one overall parameter.
To write it explicitly would be something like:
A_EXTS = a b c d e
B_EXTS = f g h i j
C_EXTS = k l m n o
A.dat : $(foreach EXT, ${A_EXTS}, prefix1_${EXT}.dat prefix2_${EXT}.dat)
python analyse.py $^ > $#
B.dat : $(foreach EXT, ${B_EXTS}, prefix1_${EXT}.dat prefix2_${EXT}.dat)
python analyse.py $^ > $#
C.dat : $(foreach EXT, ${C_EXTS}, prefix1_${EXT}.dat prefix2_${EXT}.dat)
python analyse.py $^ > $#
Obviously the only difference between the three rules is the A vs B vs C.
I thought to try something like
%.dat : $(foreach EXT, ${%_EXTS}, prefix1_${EXT}.dat prefix2_${EXT}.dat)
python analyse.py $^ > $#
…but that doesn't work; e.g. make B.dat runs the rule for B.dat but ignores the dependencies; $^ is set to the empty string.
The files starting prefix2_ are generated by another recipe, so I can't just specify them within the recipe, they need to be marked as dependencies here.
Is this possible to express these dependencies without repeating the same rule?
Well, you can't do it quite like you want to here, but it's not related to looking up variable names: it's because of expansion order.
Variables in targets and prerequisites are expanded when the makefile is parsed, but make doesn't expand the patterns in pattern rules until much later. That means when make expands the ${%_EXTS} variable as it parses the makefile, it has no idea what the value of % will be later when it's actually trying to build things.
You can use secondary expansion to delay expansion of variables until make's second pass where it is actually finding target names. I pulled the logic out into a separate variable and used call to make it a bit more readable:
.SECONDEXPANSION:
EXPANDDEPS = $(foreach EXT,${$1_EXTS},prefix1_${EXT}.dat prefix2_${EXT}.dat)
%.dat : $$(call EXPANDDEPS,$$*)
python analyse.py $^ > $#
I have, for example, the following Makefile to generate PDF files from Markdown files in subdirectories:
FOLDERS = f1 f2 f3
.PHONY: $(FOLDERS)
f1: f1/f1.md
cd $# && pandoc $(notdir $^) -o $(patsubst %.md,%.pdf,$(notdir $^))
f2: f2/f2.md
cd $# && pandoc $(notdir $^) -o $(patsubst %.md,%.pdf,$(notdir $^))
f3: f3/f3.md
cd $# && pandoc $(notdir $^) -o $(patsubst %.md,%.pdf,$(notdir $^))
The expected result is that make f1 requires the existence of f1/f1.md, and generates the resulting PDF as f1/f1.pdf. The same for f2 and f3. This works, but the declarations seem unnecessarily repetitive.
Is there any way to combine these three rules into one, generic rule? That is, without needing to explicitly write out all of the paths to the PDF files or Markdown files, as I may be dynamically adding subfolders and I'd prefer to just change the definition of FOLDERS in the first line. I've googled around and tried a few things, but I feel like either I can't find the right incantation to use, or I'm missing a piece of knowledge about how Makefiles work. Could someone please point me in the right direction?
First, note that there's no good reason to use PHONY targets here, since these rules appear to be building files whose names are known beforehand. Targets like f1/f1.pdf would be much better.
Unfortunately we can't use a pattern rule when the stem (e.g. f1) is repeated in a prerequisite. But a "canned recipe" can do the trick:
define pdf_template
$(1): $(1)/$(1).md
cd $$# && pandoc $$(notdir $$^) -o $$(patsubst %.md,%.pdf,$$(notdir $$^))
endef
$(eval $(call pdf_template,f1))
$(eval $(call pdf_template,f2))
$(eval $(call pdf_template,f3))
(Note how you must escape the $ signs in the template.)
If those $(eval...) lines look too repetitive, you can replace them with a loop:
$(foreach folder,$(FOLDERS),$(eval $(call pdf_template,$(folder))))
EDIT: Come to think of it, there's another way. You can't construct a pattern rule that uses the stem more than once:
$(FOLDERS): %: %/%.md
cd $# && ... this won't work
And you can't use the automatic variables in the prerequisite list, because they aren't yet defined when they're needed:
$(FOLDERS): $#/$#.md
cd $# && ... this won't work either
But you can use them there if you use Secondary Expansion, which causes Make to expand the prereq list a second time:
.SECONDEXPANSION:
$(FOLDERS): $$#/$$#.md
cd $# && ... this works
Again, note the escaped $ symbols.
I'm trying to improve my Makefile by using define as functions, but I have a little problem with Make functions in defines. Let me show you a demo
OBJ=obj/main.o \
obj/prompt.o
define buildMessage
src="$(patsubst $(OBJ_PREFIX)/%.o,%.c,$(1))"; \
obj="$(patsubst $(OBJ_PREFIX)/%.o,%.o,$(1))"; \
echo "$$src => $$obj"
endef
$(OBJ):
$(call buildMessage, "$#")
$(CC) -o $# -c $(patsubst $(OBJ_PREFIX)/%.o, $(SRC_PREFIX)/%.c, $#) $(CFLAGS)
So, yeah, I want the define to print the build step with fancy style, but it seems that the patsubst isn't applied in the define. It will output
obj/main.o => obj/main.o
obj/prompt.o => obj/prompt.o
It is exactly like if the patsubst was handled but without changing nor matching anything. Any suggestions?
Thank you for your time
Alex
I'm assuming that, although you didn't show it, the value of OBJ_PREFIX is obj.
Make doesn't care anything about quotes. When you write:
$(call buildMessage, "$#")
the value of $1 will be, literally, "obj/main.o" including the quotes. That string doesn't match the pattern obj/%.o and so the pattern doesn't apply, leaving the original string untouched.
You should write this:
$(call buildMessage,$#)
I am VERY new to makefiles. I have discovered a flaw in a make file that causes files in a list to be copied from a single source file instead of each file in the list.
First, there is a sub model variable SUB_MODEL_LIST that contains 0 1 2 3 separated by white space.
Here is the segment that does the copy:
$(TARGET_BIN_LIST_NEW) : $(TARGET_BIN_LIST)
#echo copying from $< to $#
$(call COPY, $(firstword $(TARGET_BIN_LIST)), $#)
TARGET_BIN_LIST_NEW contains new file names separated by white space and is composed of something like this:
file001.200 file001.201 file001.202 file001.203
and TARGET_BIN_LIST contains the existing file names and is composed of something like this:
file001c.200 file001c.201 file001c.202 file001c.203
The last digit in the file extension is the model number.
As I read this, the makefile runs:
#echo copying from $< to $#
$(call COPY, $(firstword $(TARGET_BIN_LIST)), $#)
four times, however, it always use the first file name in the TARGET_BIN_LIST due to the firstword function. This results in file001.200, file001.201, file001.202, file001.203 being created, but they are all copies of file001c.200 when they should be copies of their respective files in the list. Each file relates to a sub model version of the code.
My thought to solve this was to use the word function. Something like this:
$(TARGET_BIN_LIST_NEW) : $(TARGET_BIN_LIST)
#echo copying from $< to $#
$(call COPY, $(word $(sub), $(TARGET_BIN_LIST)), $#)
where sub is an element of SUB_MODEL_LIST, but I am not sure how that will work. Does the above roll out into 4 separate calls, or can it be looked at as a loop that can have an increment value for sub??
I also thought about using a foreach loop:
$(foreach sub,$(SUB_MODEL_LIST),$(call COPY, $(word $(sub), $(TARGET_BIN_LIST)), $(word $(sub), $(TARGET_BIN_LIST_NEW)))
But I get the error:
*** first argument to `word' function must be greater than 0. Stop.
Ok, so I tried:
$(foreach sub,$(SUB_MODEL_LIST),$(call COPY, $(word $(sub)+1, $(TARGET_BIN_LIST)), $(word $(sub)+1, $(TARGET_BIN_LIST_NEW)))
But then I got the error:
*** non-numeric first argument to `word' function. Stop.
Now I'm stuck. I would like to keep the existing implementation in tact at much as possible, but can adopt a loop method if needed.
Thanks for the help!
You have to step back. You're misunderstanding how this works. In make an explicit rule with multiple targets is EXACTLY THE SAME as writing the same rule multiple times, once for each target. So this:
$(TARGET_BIN_LIST_NEW) : $(TARGET_BIN_LIST)
#echo copying from $< to $#
$(call COPY, $(firstword $(TARGET_BIN_LIST)), $#)
If TARGET_BIN_LIST_NEW is file001.200 file001.201 file001.202 file001.203 and TARGET_BIN_LIST is file001c.200 file001c.201 file001c.202 file001c.203, is identical to writing this:
file001.200 : file001c.200 file001c.201 file001c.202 file001c.203
...
file001.201 : file001c.200 file001c.201 file001c.202 file001c.203
...
file001.202 : file001c.200 file001c.201 file001c.202 file001c.203
...
file001.203 : file001c.200 file001c.201 file001c.202 file001c.203
...
So you can clearly see that when each rule is run, the value of $< and $(firstword $(TARGET_BIN_LIST)) will be the same thing (file001c.200).
Is it really the case that whenever ANY of the fileXXXc.YYY files change, you want to rebuild ALL the fileXXX.YYY files? That's what your rule does, but based on the recipe it doesn't seem like that's what you want.
Make is mostly about writing one rule to build one target from zero or more prerequisites. If you use a pattern rule you can do this pretty easily:
all: $(TARGET_BIN_LIST_NEW)
file001.% : file001c.%
#echo copying from $< to $#
$(call COPY,$<,$#)
If your filenames may have a more complex naming convention then you'll need something more complicated.
ETA:
Since your naming convention doesn't fit into make's pattern rule capabilities you'll have to do something fancier. You can use eval to generate the rules, like this:
all: $(TARGET_BIN_LIST_NEW)
define TARGET_BIN_COPY
$(1) : $(basename $(1))c$(suffix $(1))
#echo copying from $$< to $$#
$$(call COPY,$$<,$$#)
endef
$(foreach T,$(TARGET_BIN_LIST_NEW),$(eval $(call TARGET_BIN_COPY,$T)))
# uncomment this for debugging
#$(foreach T,$(TARGET_BIN_LIST_NEW),$(info $(call TARGET_BIN_COPY,$T)))
First off, thank you to MadScientist for your help in clarifying how this works.
This implementation worked for me:
$(TARGET_BIN_LIST_NEW) : $(TARGET_BIN_LIST)
#echo copying from $(filter %$(suffix $#), $(TARGET_BIN_LIST)) to $#
$(call COPY, $(filter %$(suffix $#), $(TARGET_BIN_LIST)), $#)
I want to remove the duplication of recipe in a makefile like the following
SHELL := /bin/bash
a_% : a1_% a2_%
cat $^ > $#
b_% : b1_% b2_% %_b3
cat $^ > $#
However the following does not work. I guess the trick in this SO question does not work with pattern rules.
SHELL := /bin/bash
a_% : a1_% a2_%
b_% : b1_% b2_% %_b3
a_% b_%:
cat $^ > $#
Any suggestions ? ( In my original makefile, recipe duplication is occurring in 4 targets, and each of those take 3 substitutions, so I can't unroll the targets)
--EDIT--
I realized that one way to solve this was the following.
CMD1 = cat $^ > $#
a_% : a1_% a2_%
$(CMD1)
b_% : b1_% b2_% %_b3
$(CMD1)
I believe this does what you asked for:
SHELL := /bin/bash
define STUFF
$(1)_%: $(1)1_% $(1)2_% $(2)
cat $$^ > $$#
endef
$(eval $(call STUFF,a))
$(eval $(call STUFF,b,%_b3))
How this works:
The general form of the rule is defined as STUFF. (You'd obviously want a better name in your own Makefile.) Note the doubling of dollar signs in $$^ and $$#. This protects them from evaluation when $(call ...) is executed. $(1) and $(2) will be replaced by $(call ...) with positional arguments.
$(call STUFF,a) "calls" STUFF with $(1) set to the string a and $(2) set to the empty string. The return value is:
a_%: a1_% a2_%
cat $^ > $#
Note how one $ was stripped from the remaining variables.
$(eval ...) evaluates the return value obtained in the previous step as if that string had been put in the Makefile. So it creates the rule.
Steps 2 and 3 also happen for the b files. It is similar to what happens for the a files except that this time $(2) is set to the string %_b3.
This is essentially the method I've used in the past to avoid duplication of rules for cases where the rules were rather complex. For the specific case you show in your question, I'd use the shared command variable you mention in your question.