In our makefile, we have one recipe that links together all our object and library files to make an executable (an .elf file). As a side effect, this step also produces a map-file and an Intel .hex file:
$(ELF_FILE) : <list of dependencies here>
<linker command line>
Until now, since we never actually had a $(MAP_FILE) or a $(HEX_FILE) target, when ever another target depended on one of the $(ELF_FILE)'s side products, we simply declared it to be dependent on $(ELF_FILE), even if the recipe of that target didn't want to access the $(ELF_FILE) itself at all. For instance:
# Target that needs map-file, which is a side product of the $(ELF_FILE) target.
$(TARGET_THAT_NEEDS_MAP_FILE) : $(ELF_FILE)
<build-recipe>
# Target that needs hex-file, which is also a side product of the $(ELF_FILE) target.
$(TARGET_THAT_NEEDS_HEX_FILE) : $(ELF_FILE)
<build-recipe>
We have recently found out that a recipe can be used for more than one target, like so:
$(MAP_FILE) $(HEX_FILE) $(ELF_FILE) : <list of dependencies here>
<linker command line>
With this new-found knowledge, we figured we could get rid of the above "hack" and just directly state each target's direct dependencies:
$(TARGET_THAT_NEEDS_MAP_FILE) : $(MAP_FILE)
<build-recipe>
$(TARGET_THAT_NEEDS_HEX_FILE) : $(HEX_FILE)
<build-recipe>
Having implemented these changes, we now observe an odd effect that makes us suspect that we've either misunderstood this multiple-targets-one-recipe feature of make, or we're not using it correctly. The odd effect is that the recipe that produces the .elf, .map and .hex files now appears to run twice. This doesn't seem to have caused any immediate problems, but it does seem to indicate that something is fishy here. So my question, can our new approach work at all, or should we stick to the hack I described above?
EDIT: We're running our make in a multi-threaded manner (i.e. with -j).
It might be that when make is trying to update a target (whether it is $(MAP_FILE), $(HEX_FILE) or $(ELF_FILE), it does not know that its recipe will also update another target, therefore it starts a recipe for that one too, even if it's the same.
Of course, that would only happen when using the -j option. (Did you had the possibility to try without ?)
To illustrate :
$(TARGET): $(ELF_FILE) $(MAP_FILE)
<update target>
Here make will try to update $(ELF_FILE) and $(MAP_FILE) and fire the recipe twice. (That should also applies if the dependencies are on different target, as long as the targets are updated by a one execution of make and that there is no bottlenecks between them.
I'm not completely sure about that, though, make might be able to know that this is the same recipe.
======
This answer might be of use to you.
Specifically :
However, if your output files and your input file share a common base,
you CAN write a pattern rule like this:
%.foo %.bar %.baz : %.boz ; $(BUILDIT)
Strangely, for implicit rules with multiple targets GNU make assumes
that a single invocation of the recipe WILL build all the targets, and it will behave exactly as you want.
MadScientist
It refers to that part of the make manual :
Pattern rules may have more than one target. Unlike normal rules, this
does not act as many different rules with the same prerequisites and
recipe. If a pattern rule has multiple targets, make knows that the
rule’s recipe is responsible for making all of the targets. The recipe
is executed only once to make all the targets. When searching for a
pattern rule to match a target, the target patterns of a rule other
than the one that matches the target in need of a rule are incidental:
make worries only about giving a recipe and prerequisites to the file
presently in question. However, when this file’s recipe is run, the
other targets are marked as having been updated themselves.
EDIT:
Gnu Make has now gained a feature that would support this usecase (in version 4.3) : grouped explicit targets. It allows make to be aware that one recipe generate several targets, and it used like this (from the gnu make manual) :
foo bar biz &: baz boz
echo $^ > foo
echo $^ > bar
echo $^ > biz
foo, bar, and biz are generated by this rule (note the use of &: instead of :.
Full documentation : https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Multiple-Targets.html ("Rules with Grouped Targets")
Related
At present, I have a makefile that has:
a target which links an executable image file from a bunch of object files
a pattern rule target that compiles the various object files the linker target depends on
I want to make the following changes.
Instead of compiling the object files outright, I want the pattern rule target mentioned above to create (for each object file that needs updating) an empty object_file_name.update file. Essentially, this target's job would be to take stock of all object files that actually need to be recompiled.
Write a new target that launches a Perl process which finds all these object_file_name.update files and, for each object file that must be recompiled, compiles it in this Perl process.
I know how to do 2) ... that part is not giving me any trouble. The part I'm worried about is 1). The reason is that that target would basically have to claim to update any needed object files while, in truth, merely creating an .update file for each such object file but not the object file itself.
I think I could trick GNU Make into not starting to try to link anything before all the object files have been built by declaring my dependencies accordingly (pseudo-code, not a valid GNU Make snippet):
# Phony target that reads the *.update files created by the pattern rule target below and then
# compiles each object file for which an *.update file exists.
COMPILE_OBJECTS :
...
# Pattern rule target to take stock of all object files that need updating. Creates an *.update file for
# each object file that needs recompiling.
%.o : %.c :
...
$(EXE_FILE_TO_LINK) : $(LIST_OF_OBJECT_FILE_PATHS) COMPILE_OBJECTS
...
but I still worry that this might result in undefined behavior because my pattern rule target would basically be lying to GNU Make about updating the needed object files. Is my worry justified?
Basically, I want to interject an intermediate layer between GNU Make and the compiler so that GNU Make doesn't compile each object file separately. Instead, the compiling would be done in a single Perl process that has access to the complete list of object files that need to be compiled, allowing me to do various fancy things that I couldn't do if GNU Make controlled compilation directly.
Yes, it's legal and I often use this pattern.
Consider the case where you only want to kick off a long build step if a file has changed.
target: config-file
target-creator $< -o $#
Now let's say we can't give make the dependencies for config-file (because the config file creation step lacks a dependency listing ability (BAH!)).
.PHONY: FORCE
FORCE: ;
config-file: FORCE
config-creator -o $#.tmp
cmp $#.tmp $# || mv $#.tmp $#
We ask make to build target
Make first has to build config-file
Make will always run the recipe for config-file,
as its dependency FORCE is out of date (being phony)
CRUCIALLY we only update config-file if config-creator decides something has actually changed
If cmp decides config-file.tmp and config-file are the same, and the last line of the recipe completes with no error
OTOH if cmp detects a mis-compare, it fails, and the shell goes on to execute the mv.
After running the recipe for config-file, make does actually check config-file's modification time. IF config-file has become younger than target, only then will target-creator be run.
The subtlety here is that even though config-file's recipe runs every time, config-file itself is not phony.
Using GNU make, I am trying to solve a problem similar to make recipe execute twice — that is, to have a Makefile recipe run twice. In my case, however, the recipe is run under the .SECONDEXPANSION target, and the two different runs will be called with different parameters to generate different versions of the output file from the same input file. That is, with input file foo, this example Makefile should be callable via make foo.pdf or make foo.expanded.pdf to build one .pdf file, or make all to build both .pdf files:
.PHONY: all
all: foo.pdf foo.expanded.pdf
.SECONDEXPANSION:
%.expanded.pdf %.pdf: %
#echo building $(basename $#)
Of the two solutions given in that answer, the first is unsuitable because it always runs the rule twice; I want it run twice when the user asks for it.
The second solution posted there is conceptually what I am looking for and have implemented in the above example Makefile, with only the small problem that it doesn't work: although the all target lists both .pdf files as dependencies, only one is built when make all is run.
Is there a way to tell GNU make to build two different files using the same rule under a .SECONDEXPANSION?
EDIT: Clarified in problem description that the same input file is used to build both versions of the output file, and modified sample Makefile to include this dependency.
EDIT: I would like a solution as scalable as possible; that is, it should work if the input filename contains dots, specifying additional output file foo.reduced.pdf should require only adjusting the targets and recipe as appropriate, etc. This limits performing string surgery that relies on the filenames appearing exactly as given in this narrow example (e.g., changing the rule to %.pdf: $$(firstword $$(subst ., ,$$*)) fails if the input file could be either foo or foo.bar).
You are probably looking for Pattern-specific Variable Values. Let's assume your recipe depends on a make variable named BUILDFLAGS that takes value normal by default and special for the "expanded" targets. Then this Makefile:
BUILDER := builder
BUILDFLAGS := normal
.PHONY: all
all: foo.pdf foo.expanded.pdf
%.expanded.pdf: BUILDFLAGS := special
%.pdf:
$(BUILDER) $(BUILDFLAGS) $#
should do about what you want with the same rule for all targets, plus one pattern-specific variable value declaration. Replace builder, normal and special with what makes sense in your case. Demo:
$ make foo.pdf
builder normal foo.pdf
$ make foo.expanded.pdf
builder special foo.expanded.pdf
$ make
builder normal foo.pdf
builder special foo.expanded.pdf
Your problem has nothing to do with .SECONDEXPANSION. You can just drop that and the problem will be the same.
Your problem is that you are using a pattern rule with multiple target patterns, and expecting that it works similar to an explicit rule with multiple targets. But it does not (and in fact you cannot have a rule with both pattern and explicit targets).
For a pattern rule with multiple target patterns, Make matches the same pattern to all the %, including multiple times in the targets, and then assumes that it just has to execute the recipe with that pattern once, and it will make all the matched targets.
In your case the best way is to use multiple rules (I changed your recipe because using echo as a Make recipe is a bad idea):
.PHONY: all
all: foo.expanded.pdf foo.pdf
RECIPE = touch $#
%.expanded.pdf:
$(RECIPE)
%.pdf:
$(RECIPE)
I have a Variable in make that is dependant on a file that must be built before the variable can be set, is there a way to get this to work?
parsable_file: dependancies
commands to make parsable_file
targets=$(shell parse_cmd parsable_file)
$(targets): parsable_file
command to make targets
.phony: all
all:$(targets)
If I run $ make parsable_file && make all this will work (I get an error that parse_cmd cant find parsable_file but it works), but just make all will not work. Is there a Make idiom for this?
Set the variable in a file that you include in the main makefile and include a rule in the main makefile for how to build it (the one you already have should be fine).
I believe that will do what you want.
See Including Other Makefiles and How Makefiles Are Remade (which is linked from the first section) for more details on this concept.
Also, unless parseable_file has a usage independent from that parse_cmd call, it should be possible to do the creation and the parsing at the same time and just have the resulting makefile contain the correct value for $(targets) in one step.
I encountered such pattern in makefile
CXXOBJ = f1.o f2.o f3.o
$(CXXOBJ): %.o: %.cpp
g++ -c $< -o $#
f1.o: f1.cpp f1.hpp f2.hpp
f2.o: f2.cpp f2.hpp f3.hpp macros.h
f3.o: f3.cpp f3.hpp
It works (at least with GNU make 4.0).
It uses generic recipe from 4th line,
but in addition uses dependencies defined at the bottom.
Questions
Is it standard make behavior? (or is it specific to GNU-make?)
Is it standard way to write make file? (i.e. are people usualy doing it this way or is it something 'exotic'?)
How exactly does it work?
How does make combine 2 distinct rules for same file? (just append dependency list or something more?)
(I was browsing through GNU-make manual, but could not find relevant part)
This is called static pattern rules (https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Static-Usage.html). It is specific to GNU make. It might be useful when different targets require different recipes to build, but match the same pattern.
As for third question, there are no distinct rules for the same file. Everything is quite well defined, each target have corresponding .cpp file.
GNU Make manual:
One file can be the target of several rules. All the dependencies
mentioned in all the rules are merged into one list of dependencies
for the target....
There can only be one set of commands to be executed for a file. If
more than one rule gives commands for the same file, make uses the
last set given and prints an error message...
I read some tutorials concerning Makefiles but for me it is still unclear for what the target "all" stands for and what it does.
Any ideas?
A build, as Makefile understands it, consists of a lot of targets. For example, to build a project you might need
Build file1.o out of file1.c
Build file2.o out of file2.c
Build file3.o out of file3.c
Build executable1 out of file1.o and file3.o
Build executable2 out of file2.o
If you implemented this workflow with makefile, you could make each of the targets separately. For example, if you wrote
make file1.o
it would only build that file, if necessary.
The name of all is not fixed. It's just a conventional name; all target denotes that if you invoke it, make will build all what's needed to make a complete build. This is usually a dummy target, which doesn't create any files, but merely depends on the other files. For the example above, building all necessary is building executables, the other files being pulled in as dependencies. So in the makefile it looks like this:
all: executable1 executable2
all target is usually the first in the makefile, since if you just write make in command line, without specifying the target, it will build the first target. And you expect it to be all.
all is usually also a .PHONY target. Learn more here.
The manual for GNU Make gives a clear definition for all in its list of standard targets.
If the author of the Makefile is following that convention then the target all should:
Compile the entire program, but not build documentation.
Be the the default target. As in running just make should do the same as make all.
To achieve 1 all is typically defined as a .PHONY target that depends on the executable(s) that form the entire program:
.PHONY : all
all : executable
To achieve 2 all should either be the first target defined in the make file or be assigned as the default goal:
.DEFAULT_GOAL := all
Not sure it stands for anything special. It's just a convention that you supply an 'all' rule, and generally it's used to list all the sub-targets needed to build the entire project, hence the name 'all'. The only thing special about it is that often times people will put it in as the first target in the makefile, which means that just typing 'make' alone will do the same thing as 'make all'.
The target "all" is an example of a dummy target - there is nothing on disk called "all". This means that when you do a "make all", make always thinks that it needs to build it, and so executes all the commands for that target. Those commands will typically be ones that build all the end-products that the makefile knows about, but it could do anything.
Other examples of dummy targets are "clean" and "install", and they work in the same way.
If you haven't read it yet, you should read the GNU Make Manual, which is also an excellent tutorial.