what does "archive" do in makefile - makefile

in some makefile, I saw the following line:
#---- build rule
all: archive
what does this mean? any pointer for reference?

Line starting from # symbol is just a comment, maybe somewhat fancy =). Second line declares dependency of target all from target archive, so when you call make all from your command line, archive target is executed before all target.

The general structure for build on make is
target_name: dependent_target list
<Tab> rule for the target
When we do make target_name, It checks if all its dependency targets are upto date, If not then execute them and finally, it executes your rules for the target_name
So for your example, make all will first execute target by the name archive, if required, before executing rules for all.

Related

What does "all-yes" mean in ffmpeg Makefile

In ffmpeg Makefile,
https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/blob/master/Makefile#L37
https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/blob/master/Makefile#L189
It defined phony targets "all" and "all-yes", but I can't find prerequisites and command of "all-yes" by searching whole ffmpeg directory. So can anyone help to explain what "all-yes" exactly means?
There is another "all" target in the "include $(SRC_PATH)/fftools/Makefile": https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/blob/master/fftools/Makefile#L30
$(foreach P,$(AVPROGS-yes),$(eval $(call DOFFTOOL,$(P))))
all: $(AVPROGS)
fftools/ffprobe.o fftools/cmdutils.o: libavutil/ffversion.h | fftools
OUTDIRS += fftools
4.11 Multiple Rules for One Target
There can only be one recipe to be executed for a file. If more than one rule gives a recipe for the same file, make uses the last one given and prints an error message. (As a special case, if the file’s name begins with a dot, no error message is printed. This odd behavior is only for compatibility with other implementations of make… you should avoid using it). Occasionally it is useful to have the same target invoke multiple recipes which are defined in different parts of your makefile; you can use double-colon rules (see Double-Colon) for this.
There are two targets and make only uses the last one, so you could delete the "all-yes" or delete "all:all-yes" then use "make all" command, and it has no effect on the compilation. the command line "all:all-yes" is just ensure the "all" is the default target.

Is it ok to have a GNU Make target that claims to generate / update a certain target file but actually doesn't?

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.

Target dependency: Makefile no rule to make target error

Here is the make file that I am running,
.PHONY: build
build: pre_build_script $(OUTPUTDIR)/%.cpp
$(OUTPUTDIR)/%.cpp: $(INTXTDIR)/%.txt
python.exe $(SOMEDIR)/somepythonscript.py $(INTXTDIR) $(OUTPUTDIR)
.PHONY: pre_build_script
pre_build_script:
pythonscript.exe $(PREBUILDDIR)
This is the output that I get:
$ make build
pythonscript.exe $(SAMPLEDIR)
make: *** No rule to make target '../obj/CPP/%.cpp', needed by 'build'. Stop.
Looks like I'm missing on some sytanx as I get this error inspite of declaring the target dependency. Any suggestions?
This means make cannot find a file named $(OUTPUTDIR)/%.cpp, a prerequisite for the first rule.
You cannot use % as a wildcard anywhere in a rules like this:
build: pre_build_script $(OUTPUTDIR)/%.cpp
it needs to be a part of pattern rule or a static pattern rule.
You can use $(wildcard $(OUTPUTDIR)/*.cpp) to get a complete list of files, but it's an anti-pattern (pun intended). You are supposed to either exactly know what files are used in what rules, or (know it even better and) create a generic pattern rule.
The second pattern rule (one using somepythonscript.py) is supposed to work on a single source-target file pair, $(INTXTDIR)/%.txt -> $(OUTPUTDIR)/%.cpp. The command seems to process all the files in the directory, which is not incremental: it will redo all the work even if only one file was updated.

Make command using default target name 'Makefile'

Why is the following makefile using Makefile target?
Makefile1:
Initially I have the following makefile which worked as expected when invoked as make abc xyz -s.
%::
echo $#
I would get
abc
xyz
Makefile2:
Now after adding an empty rule named test.
%:: test
echo $#
test:
the following invocation
make abc xyz -s
results in
Makefile
abc
xyz
Why am I getting Makefile as my output even though I am giving only abc and xyz as targets? Thanks in advance.
Because make always tries to rebuild the build files before building the actual targets. If it finds a rule for Makefile and if it is out-of-date, it will be rebuilt and reloaded and the requested targets will be built according to the new makefile. This is a feature so that if the build-files are themselves generated (rather common with autotools, cmake and similar), it won't use stale build instructions.
For more details see GNU Make Manual section 3.5
In the specific examples above the rule has target % and that matches absolutely anything, including Makefile. So make will find it as rule for remaking makefile and will evaluate it.
Now in the first case Makefile exists and is newer than all of it's dependencies trivially because there are none and none of it's dependencies need to be remade also because there are none. So make will conclude that Makefile does not need to be remade.
In the second case however Makefile exists, but it's dependency test needs to be remade. So make runs the (empty) rule and than comes back and runs the rule for Makefile. Because make does not check the timestamps after making dependencies. It simply assumes that when it remade them, the dependent targets need to be remade as well.

What does "all" stand for in a makefile?

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.

Resources