Is there a way to combine these two pattern rules into one? (They are identical, except one is for C files and the other for assembly.)
$(USR_OBJ)/%.o: $(USR_SRC)/%.c $(OS_SRC)/*.h
$(elfCC) $(CFLAGS) -c $< -o $# -I $(OS_SRC)
$(USR_OBJ)/%.o: $(USR_SRC)/%.s $(OS_SRC)/*.h
$(elfCC) $(CFLAGS) -c $< -o $# -I $(OS_SRC)
The duplication isn't terrible; but, it just bugs me that there is only one letter difference between the two rules. (And, unlike Makefile implicit rules matching .c OR .cpp, I don't expect my flags will diverge.)
Not really. The best you can do (IMO) is use a variable for the recipe to avoid some duplication:
COMPILE.o = $(elfCC) $(CFLAGS) -c $< -o $# -I $(OS_SRC)
$(USR_OBJ)/%.o: $(USR_SRC)/%.c $(OS_SRC)/*.h
$(COMPILE.o)
$(USR_OBJ)/%.o: $(USR_SRC)/%.s $(OS_SRC)/*.h
$(COMPILE.o)
It's much more efficient to do the wildcard one time, rather than redo it every time the rule is matched:
HEADERS := $(wildcard $(OS_SRC)/*.h)
$(USR_OBJ)/%.o: $(USR_SRC)/%.c $(HEADERS)
$(COMPILE.o)
$(USR_OBJ)/%.o: $(USR_SRC)/%.s $(HEADERS)
$(COMPILE.o)
Even better would be to use one of the auto-dependency generation methods so that changing one header doesn't recompile the world (unless you know that all your .c and .s files include all the headers all the time).
There are options like using a define and a foreach etc. but for only two rules they're overkill and will leave your makefile much less readable. If you had 5 or 10 variations maybe it would be worthwhile.
Related
I'm trying to understand how to handle header file dependencies in Make rules. Let me give you a specific example.
I'm building application called myap using GNU Make. It consists of various *.h and *.c files.
Directory inc/ contains defs.h and util.h header files.
Directory src/ contains main.c, cmd.c and win.c files.
Directory obj/ contains all generated object files.
I have multiple applications that need different build options. So I don't want to rely on any implicit rules and would like to specify my own rules for all object files, etc.
I would like to specify the following rules:
Object files depend on specific *.h and *.c files. If any of them change, all object files must be regenerated. However, even though *.h files are part of the prerequisites list, I don't want to pass them to the compiler. I only want to compile *.c files.
Executable myapp depends on specific *.o files. If any of them change, executable file must be regenerated.
So far, the following Makefile with a static pattern rule seems to work correctly:
myapp_inc := inc/defs.h inc/util.h
myapp_src := src/main.c src/cmd.c src/win.c
myapp_obj := $(patsubst src/%.c,obj/%.o,$(myapp_src))
myapp_bin := obj/myapp
.PHONY: all
all:
# Create obj/main.o obj/cmd.o and obj/win.o from various *.c files
# If any *.h files in $(myapp_inc) list change, all objects are regenerated.
# If any *.c files in $(myapp_src) list change, all objects are regenerated.
$(myapp_obj): obj/%.o: src/%.c $(myapp_inc) $(myapp_src)
gcc -c -o $# $<
# Create obj/myapp from various *.o files
# If any *.o files in $(myapp_obj) list change, executable is regenerated.
$(myapp_bin): $(myapp_obj)
gcc -o $# $^
all: $(myapp_bin)
.PHONY: clean
clean:
rm -f obj/*
I don't quite understand how Make rules should be written correctly in order to handle such use case. Is the above static pattern rule, the only way that works correctly?
Specifically, I have tried the following combinations, as given in various simple examples on the Internet, and they all failed for various reasons.
This rule causes $< to always pass the name of the first prerequisite, which doesn't work with multiple *.c files:
$(myapp_obj): $(myapp_src) $(myapp_inc)
gcc -c -o $# $<
$ make
gcc -c -o obj/main.o src/main.c
gcc -c -o obj/cmd.o src/main.c
gcc -c -o obj/win.o src/main.c
gcc -o obj/myapp obj/main.o obj/cmd.o obj/win.o
/bin/ld: obj/cmd.o: in function `main':
main.c:(.text+0x0): multiple definition of `main'; obj/main.o:main.c:(.text+0x0): first defined here
/bin/ld: obj/win.o: in function `main':
main.c:(.text+0x0): multiple definition of `main'; obj/main.o:main.c:(.text+0x0): first defined here
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make: *** [Makefile:18: obj/myapp] Error 1
This rule causes $^ to always pass the names of all prerequisites, which fails:
$(myapp_obj): $(myapp_src) $(myapp_inc)
gcc -c -o $# $^
$ make
gcc -c -o obj/main.o src/main.c src/cmd.c src/win.c inc/defs.h inc/util.h
gcc: fatal error: cannot specify ‘-o’ with ‘-c’, ‘-S’ or ‘-E’ with multiple files
compilation terminated.
make: *** [Makefile:13: obj/main.o] Error 1
Now I understand the difference between $< and $^ variables, but a lot of documentation is not clear on how they should be used when dealing with a list of multiple *.c and *.h files as prerequisites.
What are the recommended usage pattern for this?
Why is it that when using $< only *.c files get passed to the recipe, but not *.h files? Is Make doing some internal filtering? Is this documented anywhere? Is it possible to modify this behavior for custom suffixes?
Is the above static pattern rule, the only way to make objects depend on *.h and *.c files, but exclude *.h files during compilation?
I don't understand the goal of trying to avoid implicit rules. But in any event, it doesn't matter to the recipe you write whether the rule was implicit or explicit: the same automatic variables are set either way. The $< automatic variable is always the first prerequisite, so if you write your rules such that the first prerequisite is the appropriate .c file then you can always use $< in your recipe to mean the .c file and no other files. All the following will work:
%.o : %.c $(headers)
gcc -c -o $# $<
foo.o: foo.c $(headers)
gcc -c -o $# $<
foo.o : %.o : %.c $(headers)
gcc -c -o $# $<
%.o : %.c
gcc -c -o $# $<
$(srcs) : $(headers)
and others.
Does this mean that all of the prerequisites apply, but only those that match the pattern get passed to the recipe?
I don't understand the question, really. The value of variables and the expansion of the recipe happens only AFTER make has decided to run the rule and is not really related (except for some special automatic variables like $?). Once make has decided that the target is out of date and the recipe needs to be run, it will assign the appropriate automatic variables, expand the recipe, then pass the recipe to the shell to be run.
The automatic variables are assigned as described in the manual: $# is the target, $< is the first prerequisite, $^ is all the prerequisites, etc.
ETA
You still haven't really explained why you don't want to use static pattern rules. They are a perfectly fine and reasonable way to do things.
If you explain what you don't like about static pattern rules, or what you wish you could do differently, then we can probably suggest alternatives that meet those requirements.
Specifically, I have tried the following combinations, as given in various simple examples on the Internet,
$(myapp_obj): $(myapp_src) $(myapp_inc)
Wherever you found this as a recommended example on the Internet, you should immediately delete from any bookmarks as that site doesn't know anything about make.
We see this paradigm at least once a week on SO. I've never really understand why people think it will work: I guess they think make is much more "magical" than it is. Consider, what does the above expand to? Suppose myapp_obj contained foo.o bar.o biz.o and myapp_src contained foo.c bar.c biz.c and myapp_inc contained foo.h bar.h, then make sees:
foo.o bar.o biz.o: foo.c bar.c biz.c foo.h bar.h
I suppose some people think make will intuit that the ".o" files should somehow match up with the ".c" files and will generate a bunch of rules that make that true. That's not what make does. The above line is exactly identical to writing this:
foo.o: foo.c bar.c biz.c foo.h bar.h
bar.o: foo.c bar.c biz.c foo.h bar.h
biz.o: foo.c bar.c biz.c foo.h bar.h
That is, if you have multiple targets make creates one copy of the rule for each target, with the same prerequisites and recipe.
This is obviously not what you want, and that's why none of the examples that try to do things this way can ever work properly.
Why is it that when using $< only *.c files get passed to the recipe, but not *.h files? Is Make doing some internal filtering? Is this documented anywhere? Is it possible to modify this behavior for custom suffixes?
None of that is the case. As I described above, the $< expands to the first prerequisite. That's all. It doesn't matter whether the first prerequisite is a .c file, a .h file, or some other file; whatever it is, $< will be that value. If you write your rule as:
foo.o : foo.c foo.h ; $(CC) -c -o $# $<
then your compiler will be invoked with foo.c. If you write your rule as:
foo.o : foo.h foo.c ; $(CC) -c -o $# $<
then your compiler will be invoked with foo.h. There's no magic here.
I have a set of .cpp files that I want to compile. These .cpp files are in a hierarchical directory structure. I want the corresponding .o files to all end up in one build folder.
Here's how I get GNU make to enumerate the files:
SRCS = \
$(wildcard $(CODE)/**/*.cpp) \
$(wildcard $(CODE)/AlgebraLibraries/**/*.cpp) \
$(wildcard $(CODE)/Calculator/Environments/**/*.cpp)
BARE_SRCS = $(notdir $(SRCS))
BARE_OBJS = $(BARE_SRCS:.cpp=.o)
OBJS = $(addprefix $(BUILD)/, $(BARE_OBJS))
Having done this, I have no idea how to create the rules that will create the .o files from the .cpp files. Intuitively, what I want to do is the following pseudocode:
for i=0, N do # <-- a for-loop!
$(OBJS)[i]: $(SRCS)[i] # <-- the rule!
$(CPP) -c $(SRCS)[i] -o $(OBJS)[i] # <-- the recipe
end
Of course, this is not valid GNU make code, but I trust you understand what it is here that I'm trying to do. The following will not work.
%.o: %.cpp
$(CPP) -c $< -o $#
This doesn't work, because GNU make is matching up the % signs, assuming that the .o files live along-side the .cpp files.
The alternative to all of this, which I know will work, but will be extremely tedious, is to enumerate all of the rules by-hand as explicit rules. There has to be a better way!
I've been researching GNU make's ability to generate rules, but there appears to be no way to do it without the built-in logic. It would be really nice if I could utilize some flow-control statements to generate the rules that I want to make. Is this asking too much of GNU-make?
In any case, is there a way to do what it is I'm trying to do with GNU make? If so, how?
This looks like a job for... several advanced Make tricks:
all: $(OBJS)
define ruletemp
$(patsubst %.cpp, $(BUILD)/%.o, $(notdir $(1))): $(1)
$$(CPP) -c $$< -o $$#
endef
$(foreach src,$(SRCS),$(eval $(call ruletemp, $(src))))
If $(BUILD) is constant, you can always just do:
$(BUILD)/%.o: %.cpp
$(CPP) -c $< -o $#
I am new to linux development.
I wrote a project using MPI and cuda. When
it gets bigger and bigger, I realize that I
need a Makefile now. So I learned how to write
one. The Makefile works, but will only compile
cpp files even if I have both of the following
lines in my Makefile:
.cpp.o:
$(CC) $(CCFLAGS) $<
.cu.o:
$(NVCC) $(CCFLAGS) $<
Any idea why this is happening? Thanks.
UNDERSTANDING MAKE
Make is all about generating missing files.
If you have TWO rules that generate the SAME file upon existence of a source then the first one in make's list that actually has a source file present will get invoked. So for instance if you have the rules:
.c.o:
$(CC) -o $# -c $<
.cpp.o:
$(CXX) -o $# -c $<
and you have two files, foo.c and bar.cpp then you can type:
$ make foo.o
it will use the first rule... and when you type
$ make bar.o
it will use the second rule.
Now suppose you have TWO files foo.c and foo.cpp
Here make has to make a choice as to which takes precedence. Make uses suffixes of files intimately for its build rules. What is considered a suffix is controlled by the .SUFFIXES directive.
The .SUFFIXES directive has a default built-in value that defines common suffixes such as .c .cpp .cc .o etc. in a particular order. If we want to change the order of precedence we clear that out with a blank line in Makefile i.e.:
.SUFFIXES:
and then follow it with our definition:
.SUFFIXES: .cpp .c .o
if you don't blank the line out, then make just appends the listed suffixes to its current list, that way multiple makefiles can simply add new suffixes without worrying about breaking each other.
Now since the .cpp is before .c the .cpp.o rule will take precedence (in case foo.cpp and foo.c are both present)
NOTE: Yes there is a "." before the words SUFFIXES and yes it is all capital letters.
Try to play with this Makefile to see the effects:
.SUFFIXES:
.SUFFIXES: .cpp .c .o
.c.o:
echo Compiling C
.cpp.o:
echo Compiling CPP
Make is very very powerful, and quite well documented so well worth the read. GNU make, which is probably the strongest implementation with amazing extensions has made me a lot of money in the past :-) enjoy the experience.
Your rule is wrong, you want something like this:
%.o : %.cu
$(NVCC) $(CCFLAGS) $< -o $#
That's assuming the command line you need to execute is something like
nvcc foo.cu -o foo.o
Otherwise, edit to suit.
I have a certain problem with my Makefile.
With this command, I can compile all my *.c files to *.o which works well:
$(OBJ) : %.o : %.c $(LDSCRIPT) Makefile
$(CC) $(ARM9_INCLUDES) -c $(CFLAGS) $< -o $#
But now I'm wondering, what if I want to run -O3 optimization on just ONE particular file, and have -O0 on the rest?
Is there any command to add a different rule for a specific file?
What I'm doing right now is compiling each C file with its own rules, which is very annoying because I have around 30 files which makes the Makefile huge, and every time I change something in one file it compiles EVERYTHING again.
particular_file.o : CFLAGS+=-O3
(assuming GNU make) see target-specific variable values in GNU Make manual
(and the immediately following pattern-specific variable values, maybe).
Also note, that commands are used from the most specific rule for given file, so you can have in case target-specific variable value is not sufficient:
particular_file.o : particular_file.c
completely_special_compiler -o $# $<
%.o : %.c
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) -o $# $<
It's possible to make the solution a bit more extensible.
Suppose you need to compile one set of files in one way and the other set of files in another way, rather than having only one exception, and you could identify patterns in those two sets of files, e.g. one set starts with "a", and the other set starts with "b", you can do something like this:
a%.o : a%.c
completely_special_compiler -o $# $<
b%.o : b%.c
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) -o $# $<
For more explanation, see Static Patterns.
I have a directory in which I keep adding different C++ source files, and generic Makefile to compile them. This is the content of the Makefile:
.PHONY: all clean
CXXFLAGS = -pipe -Wall -Wextra -Weffc++ -pedantic -ggdb
SRCS = $(wildcard *.cxx)
OBJS = $(patsubst %.cxx,%.out,$(SRCS))
all: $(OBJS)
clean:
rm -fv $(OBJS)
%.out: %.cxx
$(CXX) $(CXXFLAGS) $^ -o $#
NOTE: As is obvious from above, I am using *.out for executable file extensions (and not for object file).
Also, there are some files which are compiled together:
g++ file_main.cxx file.cxx -o file_main.out
To compile such files, until now I have been adding explicit rules in the Makefile:
file_main.out: file_main.cxx file.cxx
file.out: file_main.out
#echo "Skipping $#"
But now my Makefile has a lot of explicit rules, and I would like to replace them with a simpler implicit rule.
Any idea how to do it?
First, this method of compiling several source files directly into an executable is not a terribly good idea. The more common compile-then-link approach will save a lot of unnecessary compilation.
That said, the way to replace many explicit rules with a simpler rule depends on what the explicit rules have in common. You already have a pattern rule:
%.out: %.cxx
$(CXX) $(CXXFLAGS) $^ -o $#
and if all you want to do is add another source file to a particular target, you don't have to do this:
g++ file_main.cxx file.cxx -o file_main.out
you can get the effect just by adding a prerequisite (in a line by itself):
file_main.out: file.cxx
If you have several targets with that pattern, you can use a pattern rule:
file_main.out another_main.out a_third_main.out: %_main.out : %.cxx
If you have many such targets, you can use a variable:
MAIN_THINGS = file another a_third a_fourth and_yet_another
MAIN_TARGETS = $(addsuffix _main.out, $(MAIN_THINGS))
$(MAIN_TARGETS): %_main.out : %.cxx
And you can add other patterns for other target sets, even overlapping sets. Does that cover your situation?
It seems that you are putting the source code for multiple different programs in the same folder, and this is really the source of your problems. If you separate the source code for your libraries and programs into separate folders (or, better yet, separate projects), then you can skirt this issue by depending on all source files in the given folder. When you have everything intermixed, it is necessary to be explicit.
That said, if your dependencies have consistent, predictable names, then it is possible to eliminate this redundancy by using the eval function. For example, based on the example above:
#
# I'm going to use standard file extensions here,
# slightly deviating from your conventions. I am also
# assuming that there is a variable named PROGNAMES,
# which gives a list of all the programs to be built.
#
define ADD_EXECUTABLE
$(1): $(1).o $(1)_main.o
$(LINK.cc) $(1).o $(1)_main.o -o $(1)
endef
$(foreach progname,$(PROGNAMES),$(eval $(call ADD_EXECUTABLE,$(progname))))
Also, just a few suggestions... you should append to CXXFLAGS rather than overwrite it and you would be better off using standard file extensions (".cpp" for C++ source files, ".o" for object files, no extension for executables). See my Makefile tutorial for tips on making things easier with Make (no pun intended).