I am implementing Non-Recursive Make, using John Graham Cummings example here.
I would like to be able to specify specific includes or specific compilation flags, depending on which module I'm compiling.
For instance, say I have directories(and therefore separate Makefiles in) src/lib1 and src/executable. Say I would like to use -std=c++11 for the src/lib1 Makefile compilation, and (for some reason) -std=gnu99 for the src/executable Makefile.
Another example, say I need to include different paths for these directories.
What is the standard way to do this in non-recursive make?
What I have tried so far is something like...
$(MODULE_NAME)_CXXFLAGS:=-std=c++11
$(MODULE_NAME)_INCLUDES:=--I/.
But then the following printit just echos nothing.
printit:
#echo $($(MODULE_NAME)_INCLUDES)
Related
Typical makefiles often use the built-in variables CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, CPPFLAGS and so on1 to set the flags passed to the C, C++ or other compilers/tools. In principle, this sometimes even lets you avoid writing a compilation recipe entirely since the various built-in rules use these flags.
In general, a makefile might add things to the FLAGS variables that are required for the code to compile, such as include directories, arguments indicating which language standard to use and so on. The variables might also include "optional" or "default" arguments, such as optimization level, warning level and other settings that might validly be altered or removed.
Since CFLAGS and fields are "well known" variables, they are also apparently a configuration point for end users. For example, if a project compiles without debug information by default, it is expected that CFLAGS=-g on the make command line causes -g to be added to the $(CC) compiler command line and hence cause debug info to be produced. Similarly for other options the end user might want to control, such as the optimization level, the -march setting on gcc, and so on.
However, these two uses seem incompatible to me. If the user overrides $(CFLAGS) they will obliterate any internal "required" flags as described above, and the project either may not compile or may compile incorrectly.
Is there a best practice for handling this? The same problem doesn't really arise for "single value" variables like $(CC) since they generally have exactly one value: in this example, the C compiler to use. If the user overrides it, you use their value. Things like $(CFLAGS) are in principle a list of values, some of which are internal and shouldn't be overridden, an others which a user may want to override.
Intuitively, a solution seems to be to leave $(CFLAGS) and friends empty and unused in your makefile, preferring say CFLAGS_INTERNAL for in-makefile arguments, and then put both on the command line. I'm curious, however, if there is a best practice around this or if I'm missing something obvious.
1 For the rest of this question I will often simply refer to $(CFLAGS) with the understanding that this is simply a convenient representative of the whole family of well known compiler flag variables such as $(CPPFLAGS), $(CXXFLAGS) and so on.
I am faced with the same problem. For the time being my solution is to provide "non-standard" flags such as OPTIMS, WARNINGS, MODENV which will be appended to the "standard" CXXFLAGS internally.
If the user defines CXXFLAGS from the command-line it is assumed that he wants to override it, and if that's what he wants, that's what he should get: an override. Ironically this means I'm not using override CXXFLAGS += ... in the Makefile.
I don't want advanced users to pull their hairs out because I insist on appending/prepending my stuff to their flags, so in my opinion the final situation is like this:
GOOD: require advanced users to pass intricate custom flags
BAD: require advanced users to patch the Makefile
Just stumbled upon the same question while building an RPM with debuginfo package.
The requirement for debuginfo generation is to pass -g in CFLAGS while preserving whatever CFLAGS the software has in its Makefile.
So if you want to add some extra bits to CFLAGS, without overwriting the ones present in Makefile, you can simply use CFLAGS as an environment variable. But only as long as the Makefile in question uses CFLAGS += ... notation.
Example, suppose that you have software with Makefile having:
CFLAGS += $(ARCH) -O3 -std=gnu11 -Wall ...
To have it build with all those flags and -g, you will do:
CFLAGS='-g' make
Note that passing it as an argument to make won't work, as in: make CFLAGS='-g' is wrong, because it will overwrite internal CFLAGS.
More on the solution to pass -g for building debuginfo packages properly
Here's reference on make: appending to variables.
The approach I prefer is to provide sensible default values to these common variables, but let users provide their own - overriding the default values.
include $(wildcard makefile.in Makefile.in)
BUILD ?= build
CFLAGS ?= -O2 -fPIC -pedantic -Wall -Wextra -Wconversion
This can be done by either environment variables, command line parameters like make CFLAGS=-g or persistently in a makefile.in.
I am aware that this doesn't exactly pick up the issue you described in the questions, but I found use cases in which users want to compile a project with non-default flags should be able to
Define these variables to their needs
Check their defaults, preferably at the top of the makefile
Maybe adjust the definitions in accordance to the defaults
If someone wants to build with some special flags and is incapable of these steps, there will be some more serious problems anyhow.
This approach will not scale well when the build becomes more involved and the defaults are set across a larger makefile and dependent on other conditions.
The override directive may be what you are looking for:
$ cat Makefile
override CFLAGS += -foobar
all:
$(info CFLAGS = $(CFLAGS))
$ make
CFLAGS = -foobar
make: 'all' is up to date.
$ make CFLAGS=-g
CFLAGS = -g -foobar
make: 'all' is up to date.
Note that you can also use:
$ make CFLAGS+=-g
on the command line but it behaves just like:
$ make CFLAGS=-g
I am trying to compile c++ files using make. But, it is not using -std=c++11 flag by default. Whenever I need to compile a program which uses c++11 specific features, I have to explicitly compile it using g++.
So, I want to ask how can I have make automatically use the option -std=c++11 for all my c++ files on my system.
If I need to change some global makefile for g++ , what is the location of the makefile on Linux Mint 18 and what needs to be changed or added?
Or do I need to create a Makefile for myself?
EDIT 1: I am invoking make like make myfile
And there are only .cpp files and their binaries in the directory. I don't have any Makefile in the directory.
EDIT 2: Here, myfile is the name of the c++ file which I want to compile.
When I run make with the -d option, I get the following output (I can not paste all of the output as it is quite long and is exceeding the body size limit so, I am including the screenshots of the output).
Image 1
And this image(2) has some lines from the end.
Image 2
I intentionally made a change in the file "MagicalWord.cpp" so that make finds something to make!
There is no "global makefile" and there is no way to change the default flags for all invocations of make (unless you edit the source code to GNU make and compile it yourself, which is a bad idea in this situation).
In your makefile(s), add the line:
CXXFLAGS += -std=c++11
Assuming you're using the built-in rules for compiling things, or that you're using the standard variables with your own rules, that will do what you need.
If that doesn't work we'll need to see your makefile or at least the rules you use to build your C++ source files (things like the -d output aren't useful here--that would be interesting if files weren't being built, that you thought should be or similar).
Setting a system-wide language for all your C++ projects isn't necessarily a good idea. Instead, define a Makefile that specifies any compiler options you'd like:
CXXFLAGS := -std=c++11 $(CXXFLAGS)
The CXXFLAGS are then passed to your compiler when compiling a C++ program (assuming you're using the default GNU Make rules).
If the Makefile lives in your current working directory, you can now run make target in order to compile a target.cpp file into a target executable.
If the Makefile is in another directory, you must specify the path to it:
make -f path/to/your/Makefile target
If you want to add extra parameters just for one run, you can set an environment variable or a make variable on the command line:
# environment:
CXXFLAGS='-std=c++11' make target
# make variable:
make target CXXFLAGS='-std=c++11'
Any of these will cause the execution of g++ -std=c++11 target.cpp -o target or equivalent.
In theory you can edit your shell profile to export CXXFLAGS='-std=c++11' which will make that environment variable available to all programs you run. In practice, setting compiler options through environment variables tends to cause more problems than it solves.
Of all these solutions, just writing a normal Makefile is by far the easiest approach. That way, all of the build configuration is in one place and completely automated.
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 am new to Automake and I am attempting to compile without linking. My goal is to generate a simple Makefile as shown below using Automake.
CFLAG = -Wall
build: Thread.o
Thread.o: Thread.cc Thread.h
g++ $(CFLAG) -c Thread.cc
clean:
rm -f *.o
My attempt so far has brought me to the following Makefile.ac.
noinst_PROGRAMS = thread
thread_SOURCES = Thread.cc
EXTRA_DIST= Thread.h
How can I simulate my original Makefile?
One way is to do this is to fool Automake by providing link command that does not link:
thread_LINK = true
Other than that, I wouldn't be suprised if Automake did not have such feature.
For your example, you can just ask Automake to build your .o file directly, e.g.:
$ make Thread.o
I believe this is an implicit rule, so you won't see it in the output Makefile.
In general, Automake generates variables containing all the objects required for each executable or library target. It's pretty straightforward to use them in your Makefile, since it just generates their names by appending _OBJECTS to the target name. You could make your own target in Makefile.am like this:
build-thread: $(thread_OBJECTS)
Then you could build just Thread.o (and any other objects needed for thread) like this:
$ make build-thread
Or if you had multiple targets foo, bar, and baz, you could make your compile-only target in Makefile.am like this:
build: $(foo_OBJECTS) $(bar_OBJECTS) $(baz_OBJECTS)
The only pain here is that you'll need to maintain this list yourself based on the targets in your Makefile.am. You can invoke it at the command line like this:
$ make build
Automake is not designed to produce object. It will build either programs or libraries.
It's hard to answer your question without knowing why you'd want to compile a single object file and not something else. Maybe there is a cleaner answer to your "real" problem.
A Makefile.am you could write is
noinst_LIBRARIES = libThread.a
libThread_a_SOURCES = Thread.cc Thread.h # No need to put headers in EXTRA_DIST
The resulting Makefile would build a library libThread.a containing only libThread.o, ans because *.a libraries are just a collection of object files there is no linking involved.
The above Makefile.am also causes the emitted Makefile to contain rules to compile libThread.o, so you can add a build: rule if you like.
If you really want Automake to emit this compile rule, but not build the library, you could go with
EXTRA_LIBRARIES = libThread.a # EXTRA here means "output build rules but don't
# build unless something depends on it".
libThread_a_SOURCES = Thread.cc Thread.h
build: Thread.$(OBJEXT)
Now you are explicitely requiring the file Thread.$(OBJEXT) to be built only when you type make build, as in your original Makefile.
(Automake uses .$(OBJEXT) rather than .o to support extensions like .obj in DOS variants.)
First off, automake is a tool to auto make making Makefiles; make in and of itself is a whole different beast (and I'm pretty sure that what you were looking for was a make solution).
Here's the easiest GNU based Makefile to accomplish what you want:
all: Thread.o
This fills in something (by default) like the following (please change 4-space whitespace to hard tabs):
all: Thread.o
Thread.o: Thread.cc
$(COMPILE.cpp) $(OUTPUT_OPTION) $<
The COMPILE.cpp and OUTPUT_OPTION macros of course expand by default to GNU make specified values and aren't portable; $< is AT&T Make standard syntax though according to pmake(1)'s manpage though.
GNU make has a concept of implicit vs explicit rules, patterns, suffixes, etc that you could use, but that's not portable to all versions of make, and hence that's why all of the Makefile is plainly spelled out in terms of targets and variables as POSIX doesn't describe many of the desired scenarios for how one should write a Makefile.
Run gmake -p for more details and take a look at the texinfo manual for gmake in the topic of implicit, explicit rules, patterns, suffixes, etc.
I have been having troubles getting my makefiles to work the way I want. First off, I would like to say this is POSIX make, as in http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/make.html I am needing my build system to work with both BSDs and GNUs(Linux).
What I am wanting is a zero maintenance makefile. I want it to just compile all .c and .asm files in src/ and place the object files in objs/ and then to link everything in objs/ to a binary file.
I can do a lot, but I can't get it to separate the source and obj files.
I am ok if this requires a little built-in shell scripting (using POSIX defined /bin/sh), but I can just not get the dependencies to work right. I want it to only build the object file if the source file is newer.
My closest is this:
${C_OBJS}: ${HDRS} ${*:objs/%=src/%}.c
${CC} ${CFLAGS} -c ${*:objs/%=src/%}.c -o $*.o
This has the problem that I must still specify C_OBJS=objs/foo.o and such and also it is just barely not POSIX and therefore, compiles with BSD make but not GNU make.
The POSIX version of make does not explicitly support file names with slashes in them, nor does it make provision for separating source files in a different directory from the object files. And, as noted by #caskey, it does not support any notation using '%' characters, though it notes that such rules exist and recommends that they be reserved for use as metacharacters.
Consequently, you probably cannot do what you want with standard POSIX make.
In practice, you can often do what you seek with specific implementations of make, but the resulting makefile has limited portability.
Consider using a makefile generation systems of some sort - cmake or the auto-tools (autoconf, libtool, automake, etc). Or one of the many reworkings of the basic concepts of make:
scons
ant
cake
cook
bras
...and a dozen I've forgotten or not heard of...
POSIX make doesn't support constructs like?
objs/%.o : src/%.c
${CC} ${CFLAGS} -c $< -o $#
Forgot the question mark at the end, hope that makes my comment more clear.