Do we indeed need "all" target in a Makefile - makefile

I have found the following code from http://mrbook.org/tutorials/make/:
CC=g++
CFLAGS=-c -Wall
LDFLAGS=
SOURCES=main.cpp hello.cpp factorial.cpp
OBJECTS=$(SOURCES:.cpp=.o)
EXECUTABLE=hello
all: $(SOURCES) $(EXECUTABLE)
$(EXECUTABLE): $(OBJECTS)
$(CC) $(LDFLAGS) $(OBJECTS) -o $#
.cpp.o:
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $< -o $#
My question is: Do we really need the line
all: $(SOURCES) $(EXECUTABLE)
?
What will be wrong if I do not keep the line or does it have some other purpose?

From the perspective of the behavior of make
The line:
all: $(SOURCES) $(EXECUTABLE)
is special in this case as it is the first target defined in the Makefile. Since there is no .DEFAULT_GOAL defined that makes it the default goal and so what make will aim to build if no target is specified on the command line.
In this specific case all its presence is serving it to allow you to use the command make all.
It is also ensuring that make all and make will not work as expected if there is a file called all present as make will consider that when evaluating the rule.
The normal practice is to define such targets as phony so that they will not be effected by the presence of a file with their name.
For example: .PHONY : all.
The reasons it does not serve any other purpose in this example are:
$(SOURCES) is a redundant dependency as $(EXECUTABLE) depends on it already through $(OBJECTS) which depends on $(SOURCES) through the suffix rule .cpp.o:
The other dependence $(EXECUTABLE) is the next target defined, so removing the all target will make $(EXECUTABLE) the default goal.
From the perspective of convention
The all target is a Standard Target and "should be the default target".
Some users and tools may assume the target all is present.
For example the IDE eclipse by default expects Makefiles to have the target all which it will use for incremental builds. Without the all target extra configuration is required for eclipse be able to build the project.

When you run make without specifying a target, it will run the first target in the file. It's a convention that this target is responsible for creating a deployable file (package or executable) for installation on your platform. The name all is simply a convention (at least in the GNU project), and could be anything you like (for example $(name), compile or deployable).

I don't know why the $(SOURCES) variable appears as a prerequisite of the all target. That's pretty useless.
In your case, since you have only one executable, it's not necessary to have all. But many makefiles built multiple "final targets" which do not depend on each other. In that case it's traditional to have an all target which depends on them all so you can build them all with one command.
And since it's traditional, people put it into makefiles with only one target as well, for consistency.

Related

Creating multiple executables in Makefile

Im fairly new to makefiles. I want to compile multiple executables through my makefile, and it was to my understanding that having a target with multiple entries would run the recipe for that target through all entries. My example is:
$(EXE): $(OBJS)
g++ -o $# $< -L$(LIBPATH) -lOSApi -lrt -lpthread
My EXE variable contains all files that should be created, something like: prog1 prog2 and so on. My OBJS contains prog1.o prog2.o and so on.
When running make i create all .o files perfectly, but i only create one executable. I have tried replacing $# with $(EXE) and such, but no luck so far.
Any help would be appreciated.
EDIT:
I found the solution through MadScientist, who suggested to add an all target, and then changing my executable target to:
$(EXE): % : %.o
g++ -o $# $< -L$(LIBPATH) -lOSApi -lrt -lpthread
.PHONY: all clean
all: $(EXE)
Which to my understanding makes every target in my EXE target dependant on its corresponding .o file.
It would help greatly if you provided a full (small) sample. In the question you don't show us what the definition of EXE or OBJS is which makes it hard to say exactly.
Also, please be sure to format your question correctly.
By default make only builds the FIRST target in the makefile. It doesn't build ALL the targets in the makefile. So, if EXE contains multiple targets and the first rule in your makefile is $(EXE) : ... then only the first target in that list will be built.
You should add a new target before the above, saying that you want the default to build all the exe's. You can call it anything you like but the convention is to call it all:
all: $(EXES)
(you can also add a .PHONY: all for safety). Now the first target in the makefile is all, and as prerequisites it will build all the targets in the EXES variable.

Is there any benefit to making a Makefile a dependency of one of its own rules?

I came across this in a Makefile the other day:
%.elf: $(OBJS) $(LDSCRIPT) Makefile
$(Q)$(LD) -o $(*).elf $(OBJS) $(LDFLAGS)
What is the use of this?
Assuming that this rule is the "parent" of all your other rules (i.e. all your targets require this rule), having the Makefile itself as a dependency ensures that if $(OBJS) is ever modified, your targets will be relinked no matter the state of your .elf output, because the Makefile's last modified date will have changed.
It's a bit like a self-repair mechanism.

How can I make a target "private" in GNU make for internal use only? OR: how to best enforce target-specific variable-values?

I have some ancillary targets in a makefile that I want to restrict for internal or "private" use (only) inside the makefile. That is, I want to be able to specify these targets as dependencies from within the makefile, but I want to prevent the target from being specified as a build goal from the command line. Somewhat analogous to a private function from OOP: the target is harmful (or simply doesn't make sense) to build separately.
I wish there were a special-target .HIDDEN or .PRIVATE or something that did this, akin to what .PHONY does for non-file targets, but I don't think this exists. The private keyword is only for variables.
What is a good/general/elegant way to protect a target for internal/private use only?
The best workaround that I could come up with is to check $(MAKECMDGOALS) for "unacceptable" targets, then error-out if specified; this seems inelegant. I'm sure the makefile could be rewritten to avoid this situation -- perhaps a superior solution -- but that's not practical here.
Below the cut-line... here's a contrived example for illustration.
Though I'm looking for a general solution, one example of targets that are harmful as individual/primary goal is with inheriting of target-specific variable values:
override CFLAGS += -Wall
all : debug
%.o : %.c
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) -c -o $# $<
debug : CFLAGS += -g3 -O0
release : CFLAGS += -O3
debug : CPPFLAGS += -DDEBUG
release : CPPFLAGS += -DRELEASE
debug release : foo.o bar.o main.o
$(CC) -o $# $^ $(LDFLAGS) $(LDLIBS)
clean:
-rm -f *.o debug release
.PHONY: all clean
Implicit rule duplicated (unnecessary) for illustration. With the goal of debug or release, foo.o and others will inherit respective CFLAGS and CPPFLAGS -- If one does make clean debug all objects will be consistent. But for example if someone builds foo.o separately, it will fail to inherit the appropriate flags; e.g., make clean foo.o debug you'll get foo.o built with default CFLAGS; then it doesn't need to be updated when building debug, so it will be linked with other objects with different optimizations or different macro settings. It will probably work in this case, but it's not what was intended. Marking foo.o, etc. as illegal goals would prevent this.
EDIT:
It's very clear that my example (above) was not a good choice for my more-general question: hiding targets was not the best way to fix an issue with my example. Here's a modified example that illustrates the modified question "How to enforce target-specific values?" -- it builds on commentary from #Michael, #Beta, #Ross below, and allows posing and answering this more limited scenario.
As described in previous responses below, it's a much better idea in this case to create objects that have different build flags in separate locations. e.g.,
bin_debug/%.o : %.c
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) -c -o $# $<
bin_release/%.o : %.c
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) -c -o $# $<
OBJS = foo.o bar.o main.o # or $(SRCS:.o=.c)
DEBUG_OBJS = $(addprefix bin_debug/,$OBJS)
RELEASE_OBJS = $(addprefix bin_release/,$OBJS)
debug : $(DEBUG_OBJS)
release : $(RELEASE_OBJS)
debug release :
$(CC) -o $# $^ $(LDFLAGS) $(LDLIBS)
Pattern rule duplicated because I think it has to be (multiple "pattern targets" (%) convince make all targets are built at once with one recipe; see SO questions this and this).
So now, add in target-specific flags:
debug : CPPFLAGS += -DDEBUG
release : CPPFLAGS += -DRELEASE
But this still suffers:
make bin_debug/foo.o
will not get the CPPFLAGS from debug. I've accepted #Michael's answer below as it got me thinking about the problem in a more helpful way, but also answered some of my own rhetorical questions below.
You kind of can define private targets by starting their name with two hyphens.
--private-target:
#echo private
public-target: --private-target
#echo public
You can call make public-target but make --private-target will complain about an unknown option:
$ make public-target
private
public
$ make --private-target
/Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/usr/bin/make: unrecognized option `--private-target'
This is not a feature of make, but takes advantage of the fact that command line options are passed with two hyphens and as a result make will complain about an unknown option. This also can be easily bypassed by signaling the end of options:
$ make -- --private-target
private
$ make --version
GNU Make 3.81
Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.
There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
This program built for i386-apple-darwin11.3.0
The problem you are trying to solve is legitimate but you are heading on the worse possible path to solve it.
Declaring private targets does not make any sense
When we write a Makefile, we are describing a compilation job in terms of targets, sources and recipes. The advancement of this job is described by the set of targets which are already built. Now you are accurately observing that the sequence
make clean
make foo.o
make debug
will produce objects whose format is inconsistent with foo.o thus leaving your build directory in an inconsistent state. But it is very wrong to deduce that the user should not be able to construct foo.o explicitly. Consider the following sequence:
make clean
# Wait for foo.o being compiles and
# interrupt the build job with a signal
make debug
Since make sees that foo.o it will resume its task where it was at and left foo.o untouched while compiling subsequent units with different flags, leaving the build directory the same inconsistent state as in the first scenario.
Hence, if we could implement private targets in Makefiles, this would be ineffective and could convey a false sense of security, which is even worse than insecurity by itself. Also the solution you imagined annihilates one of the most important advantages of using Makefiles over shell scripts: Make makes it easy to continue an interrupted task where it was at.
I documented some other aspects of using Makefiles in relation to the set of targets already built in my answer to the question “What is the purpose of linking object files separately in a Makefile?”.
Another solution to your problem
To address the issue of compilation flags inconsistency, we can arrange to store built targets into a special directory, depending on the compilation flags used. Implementing this would fix the issue without forcing us to resign upon the ease of resuming an interrupted compilation job.
Here is an implementation roadmap:
Identify build profiles, here you have release and build.
Choose which compilation to use for each build profile.
Choose in which directory to store built targets for each build profile.
Write your Makefile so that built targets are stored in the directories you choosed. Please refer Gnu make - how to get object files in separate subdirectory.
Note. In my opinion, the BSD variant of make has a much nicer support for writing targets in a special directory, see my answer to the question “How to write a Makefile using different directories for targets and sources”. Generally I prefer the BSD variant of make because its documentation is short and to the point and it enjoys a lot of useful advanced examples, since operating system build and ports build in the BSD world are orchestrated by this program.
One solution to the problem is to migrate the CPPFLAGS to the pattern rules (e.g., bin_debug/%.o: CPPFLAGS...) instead of the regular rule (debug: CPPFLAGS...), final result:
bin_debug/%.o : CPPFLAGS += -DDEBUG
bin_debug/%.o : %.c
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) -c -o $# $<
bin_release/%.o : CPPFLAGS += -DRELEASE
bin_release/%.o : %.c
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) -c -o $# $<
OBJS = foo.o bar.o main.o # or $(SRCS:.o=.c)
DEBUG_OBJS = $(addprefix bin_debug/,$OBJS)
RELEASE_OBJS = $(addprefix bin_release/,$OBJS)
debug : $(DEBUG_OBJS)
release : $(RELEASE_OBJS)
debug release :
$(CC) -o $# $^ $(LDFLAGS) $(LDLIBS)
so make bin_debug/foo.o will get CPPFLAGS including -DDEBUG.
Now, lets say you have >>2 rules: debug, release, config01, config02, config03, ... each with their own CPPFLAGS.
One way might be to continue reduplicating all of the pattern rules, but that gets annoying if anything has to change. Furthermore it's not really possible to use in a foreach. This seems handy:
debug : CPPFLAGS+=-DDEBUG
release : CPPFLAGS+=-DRELEASE
config01 : CPPFLAGS+=-DSOMETHING
config02 : CPPFLAGS+=-DSOMETHINGELSE
TARGETS = debug release config01 config02
OBJS = foo.o bar.o main.o # or $(SRCS:.o=.c)
define TARGET_template
bin_$(1)/%.o : %.c
$$(CC) $$(CFLAGS) $$(CPPFLAGS) -c -o $# $<
$(1): $(addprefix bin_$(1)/,$(OBJS))
# other TARGET-specific stuff here
endef
$(foreach tgt,$(TARGETS),$(eval $(call TARGET_template,$(tgt))))
But still doesn't fix the situation of make bin_debug/foo.o -- still doesn't get CPPFLAGS.
So, instead of making target-specific variable-value like debug: CPPFLAGS+=... you could have a variable that is specific to the target, like CPPFLAGS_debug, then add to each rule:
CPPFLAGS_debug = -DDEBUG
CPPFLAGS_release = -DRELEASE
CPPFLAGS_config01 = -DSOMETHING
CPPFLAGS_config02 = -DSOMETHINGELSE
TARGETS = debug release config01 config02
OBJS = foo.o bar.o main.o # or $(SRCS:.o=.c)
define TARGET_template
bin_$(1)/%.o : CPPFLAGS+=$$(CPPFLAGS_$(1))
bin_$(1)/%.o : %.c
$$(CC) $$(CFLAGS) $$(CPPFLAGS) -c -o $$# $$<
$(1): $(addprefix bin_$(1)/,$(OBJS))
# other TARGET-specific stuff here
endef
$(foreach tgt,$(TARGETS),$(eval $(call TARGET_template,$(tgt))))
Beware; above may need more $$(...)s, untested.
Problems? Better way?
Thinking about this and tried the following:
TEST := $(shell echo $$RANDOM)
test : $(TEST)
$(TEST):
<tab>#echo tada $(TEST)
then doing a make test on command line seems to work and I think it would be difficult to get the result without using the test target. Maybe this path can help?
I don't think there's any "elegant" way to have targets somehow made private. I think the only solution that could be called elegant would be to rewrite your makefile so that it doesn't matter what target users invoke, as Beta suggests. It would also have the advantage of making your makefile more maintainable and easier to understand.
A not so elegant but fairly simple way to make targets "private" would be to rename the makefile to something other than one of the default names. Then put a new makefile in it's place that invokes the "private" makefile to do it's work. Something like:
.SUFFIXES:
PUBLIC_TARGETS = all debug release clean
REAL_MAKEFILE = private.mak
define invoke_make
$(1): $(REAL_MAKEFILE)
$(MAKE) -f $(REAL_MAKEFILE) $(1)
endef
$(foreach target, $(PUBLIC_TARGETS), $(eval $(call invoke_make,$(target))))
.PHONY: $(PUBLIC_TARGETS)
Obviously this doesn't prevent a determined user from invoking "private" targets, but hopefully it makes it clear that they shouldn't be doing this. That's all making things private in object-oriented languages does anyways. It's always possible for a sufficiently determined user to bypass it.
Even if previous speakers called this a bad idea, I was very interested in the concept of having a custom special target like .PRIVATE to more or less protect some targets from beeing called straigt.
And for everyone interested in it... this is what I came up with:
ifeq ($(strip $(filter .PRIVATE,$(MAKECMDGOALS))),)
__PRIVATEGOALS = $(shell make -f $(firstword $(MAKEFILE_LIST)) -n .PRIVATE | tail -n 1)
$(foreach __privgoal,$(__PRIVATEGOALS),$(eval __PRIVATECMDGOALS += $(filter $(__privgoal),$(MAKECMDGOALS))))
endif
ifneq ($(strip $(__PRIVATECMDGOALS)),)
$(error tried to call *private* goal(s) $(strip $(__PRIVATECMDGOALS)))
endif
.PHONY: .PRIVATE
.SILENT: .PRIVATE
.PRIVATE:
##
$^
Put it at the top of your makefile, or at least in front of the first target declared as private. You could as well put it into a separate file, like private.mk and include it in your main makefile.
You should be able to use the .PRIVATE target in the same way as you use the .SILENT or the .PHONY targets. An error is triggered in case a "private" target is called and make stops.

gnu make: match-anything: dependance on existence of prerequisites

Please consider the following Makefile:
CC = g++
CFLAGS = -c -O -Wall
EFLAGS = -O -Wall -lm -o
UTILITIES = error.o stream_manip.o mat_ops.o GaussElim.o
UTILITIES += abstractmatrix.o dvector.o dmatrix.o ConjGrad.o
# All objects
%.o: %.cpp %.hpp
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $<
# Executables (doesn't have extension)
% : %.cpp $(UTILITIES)
$(CC) $(EFLAGS) % $< $(UTILITIES)
# Specific executable
#TS_CG : TS_CG.cpp $(UTILITIES)
#$(CC) $(EFLAGS) $# $#.cpp $(UTILITIES)
The match-anything rule (for executables) is supposed to enable me to type the following in a terminal:
make TS_CG
and have make compile the executable called TS_CG. However, make doesn't use my match-all target. Instead it uses its default compilation rule.
On the other hand, if all the objects listed in UTILITIES exist, it does use my match-all target. Hence it seems the matching depends on the existence of the prerequisites.
Apparently:
When a rule is terminal, it does not apply unless its prerequisites actually exist.
(according to
make manual ).
But my rule is not terminal; it is not marked by a double colon!
So why does this still seem to apply?
I might also ask if anyone has a better solution for differentiating between object targets and executable targets, as I have tried to do in my file.
I'm surprised that Make is able to build TS_CG when the UTILITIES don't already exist, since I wouldn't expect it to know that TS_CG needs them.
Anyway, when Make is trying to find a rule for TS_CG, all it finds are implicit rules (nothing specific to TS_CG). In particular, it has %: %.cpp $(UTILITIES), which you provided, and %: %.cpp, which is built in. If $(UTILITIES) all exist, then it will use the first rule, otherwise it will move down the list, looking for a rule whose prerequisites do exist, and find the second. Only if it fails to find any rule whose prerequisites exist will it resort to looking for rules to build the prerequisites.

Makefile trickery using VPATH and include

I'm playing around with make files and the VPATH variable. Basically, I'm grabbing source files from a few different places (specified by the VPATH), and compile them into the current directory using simply a list of .o-files that I want.
So far so good, now I'm generating dependency information into a file called '.depend' and including that. Gnumake will attempt to use the rules defined so far to create the included file if it doesn't exist, so that's ok. Basically, my makefile looks like this.
VPATH=A/source:B/source:C/source
objects=first.o second.o third.o
executable: $(objects)
.depend: $(objects:.o=.c)
$(CC) -MM $^ > $#
include .depend
Now for the real question, can I suppress the generation of the .depend file in any way? I'm currently working in a clearcase environment -> sloooow, so I'd prefer to have it a bit more under control when to update the dependency information.
It's more or less an academic exercise as I could just wrap the thing in a script which is touching the .depend file before executing make (thus making it more recent than any source file), but it'd interesting to know if I can somehow suppress it using 'pure' make.
I cannot remove the dependency to the source files (i.e. using simply .depend:), as I'm depending on the $^ variable to do the VPATH resolution for me.
If there'd be any way to only update dependencies as a result of updated #include directives, that'd be even better of course.. But I'm not holding my breath for that one.. :)
If you don't want to remake .depend every time, you mustn't have a rule for it. Note that whenever you really need to remake the dependencies file, you must also remake an object file (this is not my insight, it comes from Advanced Auto-Dependency Generation, and it took me some time to grasp it). So construct .depend in the linking rule, using a PHONY target:
DEPEND_FILE = .depend
# put this command in the executable rule
$(MAKE) DEPENDENCIES
.PHONY: DEPENDENCIES
DEPENDENCIES: $(objects:.o=.c)
$(CC) -MM $^ > $(DEPEND_FILE)
-include $(DEPEND_FILE)
You can make things more efficient by having seperate depend files, one for each object, so that when one changes you don't have to recalculate the dependencies of all the objects:
# put this command in the %.o rule
$(CC) -MM $< > $*.d
-include *.d
(EDIT: just corrected a dumb mistake.)

Resources