How can I ensure that object files compiled for one hardware target will not be used for a different hardware target that needs to be compiled differently?
I am using the GNU ARM Embedded Toolchain while I am learning about embedded development. I already have a couple of development boards (with STM32F0 and STM32F4 processors), and plan to make my own boards in the future. I want to have several iterations of hardware using a common software repository.
Obviously I will have multiple targets in my Makefile, invoking the appropriate defines and compiler flags for each platform, and perhaps a make all to build for all platforms at once. As I understand it, make is an incremental build system that only re-compiles object code (*.o) files if the source file has been changed, it won't recompile if I have use different defines and options, and the wrong object code will be passed to the linker.
It seems that I could diligently make clean when switching between different targets, but that would rely on the human action and could produce bad builds if I forgot, and could not be used for a make all that produces multiple binaries for their respective hardware.
Edit Notes: Per feedback comments, I have shorted and rearranged to make the question more clear and objective. I'm not asking generically how to use Make, but rather how to prevent, say mylib.o being compiled for an STM32F0 and then later being re-used in a build for an STM32F4.
I am curious about alternative tools, and welcome discussion in the comments, but this question is specific to GNU Make.
To avoid the need for a clean build between targets, it is necessary for each target to have separate build directories in order that the target dependencies are independent and specifically generated using the appropriate tool chain and build switches etc.
Related
I happen to think (but maybe is a myth) that Cmake is greater than Autotools about making easy supporting Microsoft.
At the same time, I'm kind of sure that Autotools is even more straightforward than Cmake when it comes to important UNIX derivatives such as macOS and most popular Linux distros.
What if I can't choose?
Can a project support both Autotools and Cmake at the same time?
Bonus for: can a project support both Autotools and Cmake and even simply bare Make at the same time?
By "at the same time" I mean that ideally one should not necessarily run a clean script when changing from trying one of the build systems to another. But I guess it would be a reasonable configuration, if necessary.
Finally, do you know an example project that uses both Autotools and Cmake? One that uses both Autotools, Cmake and simply bare Make?
Yes, you can very easily support both CMake and Autotools at the same time, since they don't overlap (that is, the files you use to create those environments are different, so you can have both types of files in your project at the same time). One example of this is the GNU uCommon C++ framework.
No, you can't (easily) support bare make and either of the above systems at the same time. Neither Autotools nor CMake are actually build tools themselves. They're "build tool generators". So you don't run autotools or cmake and the result is your built project: instead you run autotools or cmake and they generate control files for a build tool. Then you run the build tool and the result is your built project.
Autotools generates makefiles, and cmake generates many different types of control files, where makefiles are one of the most common.
So, you can't have your OWN makefile in your project, because they'll conflict with the makefile generated by autotools or cmake.
Of course, you can do things like put your own makefiles in a subdirectory then invoke make with an argument like make -f rawmake/makefile or something like that. But there's no convenient way to support them all.
Realistically, I would never choose to support more than one of the above options. You will spend a lot of time getting it right, and every time you need to change your build environment it's two or three times as much work. People will find issues with whichever one of them you tend to use less often. It's a huge hassle for not that much benefit.
Which you choose depends a lot on your project. If your project runs only (or almost exclusively) on POSIX-type systems, you want it to be maximally portable even to much older systems even though it uses a lot of special OS features, or you want its installation and build options to be extremely flexible (straightforward support for cross-compilation, etc.) then autotools is a good choice. If your project runs on lots of different OS types (Windows in particular) and you want people to be able to develop with their choice of IDE (Visual Studio, Xcode, etc.) easily, then cmake is a good choice.
If your program is straightforward to build and needs hardly any configuration or customization, or you are already familiar with makefiles and don't feel like learning a whole new language just for builds, then raw makefiles may be a good choice.
I have a project, where I want to link one of system libraries statically. The project uses GNU build system.
In configure.ac I have:
AC_CHECK_LIB(foobar, foobar_init)
On development machine this library is installed in /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu. It is detected, but it is linked dynamically, which causes issues, as it is not present on some machines. Linking it statically (-Wl,-Bstatic etc.) works fine, but I don't know how to set this up in autotools. I tried forcing this into Makefile.am link flags for the project, but it still gives a preference to dynamic library.
I also tried using --enable-static with ./configure, but it seems to have no effect on system libraries.
If you want to link the whole program statically, then you should pass the --disable-shared option to configure. You might or might not need also to pass --enable-static, depending on the default value for that option (which you can influence via your configure.ac file). You really should consider doing this.
You should also consider making this the installer's problem, not the build system's. Let it be the installer's responsibility to ensure that all the shared libraries needed by the program are provided by the systems where it is installed. This is very common; in fact, it is one of the inspirations for package-management systems such as yum / dnf and apt, and their underlying packaging formats.
If you insist on linking only one library statically, while linking everything else dynamically, then you'll need to jump through a few more hoops. The objective will be to emit link options that cause just that library to be linked statically, without changing other libraries' linking. With the GNU toolchain, and supposing that the program is otherwise being linked dynamically, that would be this combination of options:
-Wl,-Bstatic -lfoobar -Wl,-Bdynamic
Now consider the documentation of the AC_CHECK_LIB() macro:
Macro: AC_CHECK_LIB (library, function, [action-if-found],
[action-if-not-found], [other-libraries])
[...] action-if-found is a list of shell commands to run if the link with the library succeeds; action-if-not-found is a list of shell
commands to run if the link fails. If action-if-found is not
specified, the default action prepends -llibrary to LIBS and defines
'HAVE_LIBlibrary' (in all capitals). [...]
Note in particular the default behavior in the event that the optional arguments are not provided (your present case) -- that's not quite what you want, at least not by itself. I suggest providing at least an alternative behavior for action-if-found case, and you could consider also making configure fail in the action-if-not-found case. The latter is left as an exercise; implementing just the former might look like this:
AC_CHECK_LIB([foobar], [foobar_init], [
LIBS="-Wl,-Bstatic -lfoobar -Wl,-Bdynamic $LIBS"
AC_DEFINE([HAVE_LIBFOOBAR], [1], [Define to 1 if you have libfoobar.])
])
You should also pay attention to the order of your AC_CHECK_LIB() invocations. As its docs go on to say:
This macro is intended to support building LIBS in a right-to-left
(least-dependent to most-dependent) fashion such that library
dependencies are satisfied as a natural side effect of consecutive
tests. Linkers are sensitive to library ordering so the order in which
LIBS is generated is important to reliable detection of libraries.
If you find that you still aren't getting what you want, then have a look at the link commands that make actually executes. You need to understand what's wrong about them before you can determine how to fix the problem.
With all that said, I observe that the above treatment is basically a hack, and it makes your build system much less resilient. It introduces dependencies on GNU toolchain options (which some other toolchains may nevertheless accept), and it assumes dynamic linking is being performed overall. It may be possible to resolve those issues with additional Autoconf code, but I urge you to instead go with one of the first two alternatives I described.
Large variety of open-source projects are distributed in source-code and supposed to be compiled with ./configure && make approach. But if I want to cross-compile, at which of those two steps I am supposed to tell them what target platform I want to get the binary?
Does it have to do with configure/make in general, or this is specific to every project? What could be an example of compiling some project, library or console application and specifying target?
I know many projects have a web-page on their websites that is dedicated to "cross compiling this program". So it seems to be project-specific setting. But the project still uses configure/make, so what is the relation of all that?
If your system is using standard GNU autoconf, then you would always define the cross-compilation at configure time, not at make time. If the configure script does not know you're cross-compiling it may obtain incorrect answers when it probes the system looking for what is supported and what is not supported.
Cross-compilation is what the --build, --host, and --target flags to configure are for. You should never need to set --build: it always refers to the system you're running configure on, and configure can figure that out for itself. For a normal cross-compilation you also do not set --host, and you would set --target to the cross-compilation target. You may also need to set the CC (for C programs) and/or CXX (for C++ programs), LD, AR, STRIP, and a few others, if needed. Personally I prefer to build in a separate directory as well, although some packages don't support it unfortunately):
tar xzf foo-1.1.tar.gz
mkdir obj
cd obj
../foo-1.1/configure --target=... CC=...-gcc CXX=...-g++ ...
make
Note this is all provided by basic autoconf / automake, so all projects will do it the same way (although in my experience many projects which do not attempt cross-compilation somewhat regularly, do something wrong such that it doesn't work so well).
I've searched for the major differences between makefile and CMakeLists, but found weak differences such as CMake automates dependency resolution whereas Make is manual.
I'm seeking major differences, what are some pros and cons of me migrating to CMake?
You can compare CMake with Autotools. It makes more sense! If you do this then you can find out the shortcomings of make that form the reason for the creation of Autotools and the obvious advantages of CMake over make.
Autoconf solves an important problem—reliable discovery of system-specific build and runtime information—but this is only one piece of the puzzle for the development of portable software. To this end, the GNU project has developed a suite of integrated utilities to finish the job Autoconf started: the GNU build system, whose most important components are Autoconf, Automake, and Libtool.
Make can't do that. Not out of the box anyway. You can make it do it but it would take a lot of time maintaining it across platforms.
CMake solves the same problem (and more) but has a few advantages over GNU Build System.
The language used to write CMakeLists.txt files is readable and easier to understand.
It doesn't only rely on make to build the project. It supports multiple generators like Visual Studio, Xcode, Eclipse etc.
When comparing CMake with make there are several more advantages of using CMake:
Cross platform discovery of system libraries.
Automatic discovery and configuration of the toolchain.
Easier to compile your files into a shared library in a platform agnostic way, and in general easier to use than make.
Overall CMake is clearly the choice when compared to make but you should be aware of a few things.
CMake does more than just make so it can be more complex. In the long run it pays to learn how to use it but if you have just a small project on only one platform, then maybe make can do a better job.
The documentation of CMake can seem terse at first. There are tutorials out there but there are a lot of aspects to cover and they don't do a really good job at covering it all. So you'll find only introductory stuff mostly. You'll have to figure out the rest from the documentation and real life examples: there are a lot of open source projects using CMake, so you can study them.
I'd like to use make to get a modular build in combination with continuous integration, automatic unit testing and multi-platform builds. Similar setups are common in Java and .NET, but I'm having a hard time putting this together for make and C/C++. How can it be achieved?
My requirements:
fast build; non-recursive make (Stack Overflow question What is your experience with non-recursive make?)
modular system (that is, minimal dependencies, makefile in subdirectory with components)
multiplatform (typically PC for unit testing, embedded target for system integration/release)
complete dependency checking
ability to perform (automatic) unit tests (Agile engineering)
hook into continuous integration system
easy to use
I've started with non-rec make. I still find it a great place to start.
Limitations so far:
no integration of unit tests
incompatibility of windows based ARM compilers with Cygwin paths
incompatibility of makefile with Windows \ paths
forward dependencies
My structure looks like:
project_root
/algorithm
/src
/algo1.c
/algo2.c
/unit_test
/algo1_test.c
/algo2_test.c
/out
algo1_test.exe
algo1_test.xml
algo2_test.exe
algo2_test.xml
headers.h
/embunit
/harnass
makefile
Rules.top
I'd like to keep things simple; here the unit tests (algo1_test.exe) depend on both the 'algorithm' component (ok) and the unit test framework (which may or may not be known at the time of building this). However, moving the build rules to the top make does not appeal to me as this would distribute local knowledge of components throughout the system.
As for the Cygwin paths: I'm working on making the build using relative paths. This resolves the /cygdrive/c issue (as compilers can generally handle / paths) without bringing in C: (which make dislikes). Any other ideas?
CMake together with the related tools CTest and CDash seem to answer your requirements. Worth giving it a look.
Bill Hoffman (A lead CMake developer) refers to the Recursive Make Considered Harmful paper in a post at the CMake mailing list:
... since cmake is creating the makefiles for you, many of the disadvantages
of recursive make are avoided, for example you should not have to debug
the makefiles or even think about how they work. There are other examples
of things in that paper that cmake fixes for you as well.
See also this answer for "Recursive Make - friend or foe?" here on stackoverflow.
-
Recursive Make - friend or foe?
Ok here is what I do:
I use one Makefile at the root and wildcard patterns to collect all files in a directory. Note that I assume that foo/*.c will make up foo.so for example. This makes the maintaining the Makefile minimal, since just adding a file to the directory automatically adds it to the build.
Since it is make you are using I am assuming (I do that for my projects) that a compiler is used that uses gcc (cc) compatible command line syntax. So MSC is out of order; but don't get frustrated, I do most of my development (unfortunately) on Windows and use MinGW with MSys; works like a charm. Produces native binaries, but was built with a Posix compliant build environment.
Dependency checking is done with the somewhat standard -MD switch. I then include all the *.d files into the Makefile. I build the patterns out of the automatically collected source files.
Finally unit tests are implemented with the "standard" check target. The check target is like the all target, except it depends on the unit test and executes that once everything is built. I do it this way so that you can just build the project or build the unit tests (and the rest of the project) separably. When I am not developing the project I want to just build it and be done with it.
Here is an example of how I do it: https://github.com/rioki/c9y/blob/master/Makefile
It also has the install, uninstall and dist targets.
As you can see everything is plain make, no recursive make calls and all is relatively simple. I used automake and autoconf and I will never do that again; also other build tools are out of the question, if I need to install foojam or barmake to build something, I normally ditch that project immediately.