I'm aware of the idea of using recursive makefiles. Will the subsequent makefiles such as the following be called be updated solely on any changes to the subsequent makefiles themselves?
e.g.:
#parent makefile. no changes here.
subsystem:
cd subdir && $(MAKE)
If the makefile within subdir was changed such that the following does not hold (e.g. only a gcc flag was changed), then will the object files be updated?
The recompilation must be done if the source file, or any of the
header files named as dependencies, is more recent than the object
file, or if the object file does not exist.
The only reason that, as written, make even runs that rule at all is because subsystem and subdir do not match.
If a subsystem file or directory were ever to be created in that directory that rule would cease to function.
If .PHONY: subsystem1 were added that problem would be fixed and that rule would always be run when listed on the command line (i.e. make subsystem). (As indicated in the comments .PHONY is a GNU Make extension. The section following the linked section discusses a portable alternative. Though it is worth noting that they are not completely identical in that .PHONY has some extra benefits and some extra limitations.)
In neither of those cases is the subsystem target paying any attention to modification dates of anything (as it lists no prerequisites).
To have a target depend on changes to a makefile you need to list the makefile(s) as prerequisites like anything else (i.e. subsystem: subdir/Makefile). Listing it as .PHONY is likely more correct and more what you want.
No, nothing in make itself tracks non-prerequisites. So flag changes/etc. do not trigger rebuilds. There are ways to make that work for make however (they involve storing the used flags in files that themselves are prerequisites of the targets that use those flags, etc.). There are questions and answers on SO about doing that (I don't have them ready offhand though).
Other tools do handle flag changes automatically however. I believe Electric Cloud's tools do this. I believe CMake does as well. There might also be others.
Recursive makefiles are executed whether or not anything changed. This is exactly one of the objections pointed out by Paul Miller in his Recursive make considered harmful paper from almost 20 years ago.
With that said, a makefile is just like any other dependency and can be added to a production rule to trigger that rule if the makefile is altered.
You can include the makefile as a dependency, the same as any other file:
mytarget.o: mytarget.c Makefile
Related
I was recently debugging a vague problem which turned out to be caused by a misplaced sub-Makefile which was conditionally included into a main Makefile by the -include directive. Mind the starting minus sign. According to GNU Make manual:
If you want make to simply ignore a makefile which does not exist or
cannot be remade, with no error message, use the -include directive
instead of include, like this:
-include filenames…
This acts like include in every way except that there is no error (not
even a warning) if any of the filenames (or any prerequisites of any
of the filenames) do not exist or cannot be remade.
For compatibility with some other make implementations, sinclude is
another name for -include.
The nastiest problem with this directive is that no diagnostics whatsoever are given when the sub-Makefile cannot be found. Needless to say, this complicates debugging a lot.
In fact, there was no real need to use it there, a regular include worked just fine and is much more robust. I understand the original author's intention for using -include. That sub-Makefile contained some "secret" stuff that was not meant to be shared with 3rd party engineers. But this functionality was never used in the end, and it could have been implemented in a more transparent way.
I wonder if there are other practical cases when -include is useful. Maybe some cases when one or several makefiles are dynamically generated during the build process?
Surely, the most useful application of -include is when the include file is auto-generated by make itself.
Remember that all include files also become make's targets automatically. So -include generated_file does not make make to fail prematurely, but implies that generated_file will be (re-)built using other rules in the current Makefile. This can be exploited in auto-dependencies generation, for example.
BTW. Another trick with 'include' is that include $(empty_var) also works without errors (i.e. is no-op).
I know we can set up commands such as all, clean, install etc in makefile and use .PHONY to tell make they're not associated with files.
But I was wondering - when creating make and makefile - was this kind of use (to run such commands) combined with .PHONY designed for that purpose? Or maybe .PHONY was added later to easily extend make to support those kind of commands?
I also read this but there wasn't anything else there except the regular known usage.
Thanks!
I do not know the history of GNU make.
The use of .PHONY is exactly what you suspect: have targets (which can thus be goals, or commands, if you wish) that are not files, and that work even if, by accident, a file with the same name exists. It is one single and clearly defined purpose.
In certain cases you want to force a target file to be re-built even if it is up-to-date, and you can declare it a prerequisite of .PHONY for this purpose, but it is frequently the sign that your makefile is not what it should be.
Another frequent situation is the grouping of several targets (real or phony) as prerequisites of one single other phony target.
But in both cases, we can say that the resulting phony target is a kind of command. In the first case it is a command that forces the build of a file. In the second it is a kind of alias for a series of actions.
GNU Make under MinGW is known to be very slow under certain conditions due to how it executes implicit rules and how Windows exposes file information (per "MinGW “make” starts very slowly").
That previous question and all other resources on the issue that I've found on the internet suggest working around the problem by disabling implicit rules entirely with the -r flag. But is there another way?
I have a "portable" Makefile that relies on them, and I'd like to make it so that it does not take around a minute to start it up each time, rather than having to get the Makefile owner to alter it just for me.
You should use make -d to see all the things make is doing and try to see where the time is going. One common reason for lengthy make times are match-anything rules which are used to determine whether or not a makefile needs to be rebuilt. Most of the match-anything rules CAN be removed; they're rarely needed anymore.
You can add this to your makefile and see if it helps:
%:: %,v
%:: RCS/%,v
%:: RCS/%
%:: s.%
%:: SCCS/s.%
And, if you don't need to auto-create your makefile you can add:
Makefile: ;
(also put any included makefiles there that you don't need to auto-create).
ETA
It seems your real question can be summed up as, "why does make take so much longer to start on Windows than on Linux, and what can I do to fix that without changing makefiles?"
The answer is, nothing. Make does exactly the same amount of work on both Windows and Linux: there are no extra rules or procedures happening on Windows that could be removed. The problem is that Windows NTFS is slower than typical Linux filesystems for these lookups. I know of no system setting, etc. that will fix this problem. Your only choice is to get make to do less work so that it's faster, and the only way to do that is by removing built-in rules you don't need.
If the problem is you really don't want to edit the actual makefiles, that's simple enough to solve: just write the rules above into a small separate makefile, maybe something like speedup.mk, then set the environment variable MAKEFILES=speedup.mk before invoking make. Make will parse that makefile as well without you having to change any makefiles.
I am working on a Makefile written by someone else in my lab and I see the following:
include /path/to/Makefile.inc
TARGET_A: pre_req_1 pre_req_2
cmd_1;
cmd_2;
...
When I look at /path/to/Makefile.inc I see that it also includes a target TARGET_A
with other pre-requisites and recipes.
Is this a normal practice? (and would it work?) Would make treat the two rules separately? Can we safely make any assumptions about which one is considered first?
It is a dangerous practice since it is confusing to know which one is applied.
The "include" will act has if the included file content was in the Makefile, and the targets will be overrided while reading the Makefile. So, the last target will be honored, and the first one (in the included file) will be ignored.
I am looking for suggestions to properly handle separate debug and release build subdirectories, in a recursive makefile system that uses the $(SUBDIRS) target as documented in the gnumake manual to apply make targets to (source code) subdirectories.
Specifically, I'm interested in possible strategies to implement targets like 'all', 'clean', 'realclean' etc. that either assume one of the trees or should work on both trees are causing a problem.
Our current makefiles use a COMPILETYPE variable that gets set to Debug (default) or Release (the 'release' target), which properly does the builds, but cleaning up and make all only work on the default Debug tree. Passing down the COMPILETYPE variable gets clumsy, because whether and how to do this depends on the value of the actual target.
One option is to have specific targets in the subdirectories for each build type. So if you do a "make all" at the top level, it looks at COMPILETYPE and invokes "make all-debug" or "make all-release" as appropriate.
Alternatively, you could set a COMPILETYPE environment variable at the top level, and have each sub-Makefile deal with it.
The real solution is to not do a recursive make, but to include makefiles in subdirectories in the top level file. This will let you easily build in a different directory than the source lives in, so you can have build_debug and build_release directories. It also allows parallel make to work (make -j). See Recursive Make Considered Harmful for a full explanation.
If you are disciplined in your Makefiles about the use of your $(COMPILETYPE) variable to reference the appropriate build directory in all your rules, from rules that generate object files, to rules for clean/dist/etc, you should be fine.
In one project I've worked on, we had a $(BUILD) variable that was set to (the equivalent of) build-(COMPILETYPE) which made rules a little easier since all the rules could just refer to $(BUILD), e.g., clean would rm -rf $(BUILD).
As long as you are using $(MAKE) to invoke sub-makes (and using GNU make), you can automatically exporting the COMPILETYPE variable to all sub-makes without doing anything special. For more information, see the relevant section of the GNU make manual.
Some other options:
Force a re-build when compiler flags change, by adding a dependency for all objects on a meta-file that tracks the last used set of compiler flags. See, for example, how Git manages object files.
If you are using autoconf/automake, you can easily use a separate build out-of-place build directory for your different build types. e.g., cd /scratch/build/$COMPILETYPE && $srcdir/configure --mode=$COMPILETYPE && make which would take the build-type out of the Makefiles and into configure (where you'd have to add some support for specifying your desired build flags based on the value of --mode in your configure.ac)
If you give some more concrete examples of your actual rules, maybe you will get some more concrete suggestions.