deps/%/:
git clone something into deps/$*/
deps/%/ebin/: deps/%/
compile things and put them into newly-created deps/$*/ebin/
I have two targets that share a common pattern (% is the * of Makefiles)
but unfortunately the pattern is too greedy and does not allow me to use those targets.
In fact I get this error: (xxx is one of deps/%/ possible values)
warning: overriding recipe for target `xxx'
warning: ignoring old recipe for target `xxx'
Off course rules order does not matter in a Makefile, so I was wondering if you knew a way around that. I have ran the doc a couple times already and found nothing about greediness, specifying order or an ugly hack…
The issue is the same here:
deps: ‹depends on deps/*/ebin/ wildcarded› | deps/
deps/:
mkdir deps/
Related
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.
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.
Question:
How can I disable implicit rule searches on a prerequisite while still ensuring that the prerequisite actually exists?
Background:
Consider the following initial Makefile:
b: a
#echo MAKING B
cp a b
a is a file which is required in order to make b. If the file a exists, make b runs successfully. If it doesn't exist, we obtain the following error:
make: *** No rule to make target `a', needed by `b'. Stop.`
This is exactly what we expected, however on inspecting the output of make --debug=a b, we see that even when a exists, make is searching through pre-defined implicit rules fitting a in order to see whether it can be re-made. For example, if the file a.c happened to exist, then make would try to compile a.c to produce the file a. To prevent this, we define an explicit rule for a with an empty recipe. This gives us the updated Makefile:
a: ;
b: a
#echo MAKING B
cp a b
The problem now is that the recipe for make b runs even if a does not exist, which results in a failure. Is there any other way to indicate that a should exist, while not searching for implicit rules to build a? I would like to do this without giving a recipe for a which checks its existence.
I'll try to sum up state of our discussion so far. Perhaps someone still pop's up with another/better insight.
Besides the option also mentioned in the question itself (see bellow for explainer on latest iteration for this approach):
a:
$(error missing file "$#")
b: a
#echo MAKING B
cp a b
In theory it should be possible to disable implicit pattern rule altogether or for specific (set) of target(s) by either defining a no recipe target rule (% : %.c) or defining a static pattern rule (a: % : %.c). Nonetheless the resulting behavior, in case there is an a.c file, seems to be the same as with an empty rule for a:. I.e. make b just proceeds without file a being present (and we'd later fail trying to access it).
Since at least some of the implicit rule seem to be implemented as suffix rules, it's possible to disable consideration of inputs like a.c by purging list of default suffices:
.SUFFIXES:
Or inhibit use of implicit built-in rules altogether by invoking make with -r (or --no-builtin-rules) option. These however are rather heavy handed as they impact processing of all the rules across the Makefile.
To work the comment in:
as mentioned disabling couple of the built in rules for C compilation would appear to yield the desired result, namely:
% : %.c
% : %.o
Would result with a.c present and no a in make: *** No rule to make target 'a', needed by 'b'. Stop.
However (like -r) it's rather intrusive as in all other targets relying on the implicit rule would be impacted. While at the same time it's not as very far reaching, because it does not cover other cases like a.C, a.cpp, a,v,...
Static rule should be able to replace pattern rules where applicable (a more specific rule being applied over the more generic one when matching). But indeed limiting its to a single target does basically put it on par with just a specific a: rule.
I am actually not sure what the rest of the tree looks like and what all possible build steps could occur. With current understanding I would still gravitate to explicit target with file existence check should files with colliding names be a possibility and concern.
Explanation for the latest version of simple failing rule:
As #Stein followed up on the topic, he actually very helpfully pointed out: Simple (always) failing rule for "building" a is perfectly sufficient. If a file of that name (a) exists, the rule for target a never gets to run its recipe. For the case the file is not there, we can just have a recipe that fails with an error message.
In my program, I have a somewhat complicated build process. Currently, in one directory I use include in Makefile.am with a file, that does not exist but has to be build on its own. The reason is that this include file is quite long. Further in the real program it is not just only one file but several and the generation process for this file can change from time to time.
The Makefile.am looks something like this
noinst_LIBRARIES = libtest.a
nodist_libtest_a_SOURCES = file.c
CLEANFILES = file.c Make_file.mk
$(builddir)/Make_test.mk: $(srcdir)/Perl/generate_mk_files.pl
perl $(srcdir)/Perl/generate_mk_files.pl file
include $(builddir)/Make_file.mk
After creation of Make_file.mk it looks something like
$(builddir)/file.c: $(srcdir)/file.template $(srcdir)/Perl/generate_c.pl
perl $(srcdir)/Perl/generate_c.pl $(srcdir)/file.template
Automake works and the final build process as well. The output to make is something like (I have shorted it somewhat):
Makefile:721: Make_file.mk: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden (file not found)
perl ../../../../src/components/test/Perl/generate_mk_files.pl test
perl ../../../../src/components/test/Perl/generate_c.pl ../../../../src/components/test/file.template
Therefore, make first complains that the include file is not found, then creates it and then also follows the rules of the included file.
Although I am happy that it works I wonder why. First, I thought that make loads the Makefile. During this step, Make_file.mk does not exists. Therefore it seems the Makefile is loaded more than once.
Further, the manual of Automake for include states:
Note that these fragments are read and interpreted by automake, not by
make.
Which is not what I see, since the included fragment does not exist during the execution of Automake.
My questions basically are:
Why does it work?
Is this the correct way to do this or should I use another approach, e.g. starting new instances of make within Makefile.
I don't really know Automake, but, from the GNU make manual :
If an included makefile cannot be found in any of these directories {standard includes directories} , a
warning message is generated, but it is not an immediately fatal
error; processing of the makefile containing the include continues.
Once it has finished reading makefiles, make will try to remake any
that are out of date or don’t exist. See How Makefiles Are Remade.
Only after it has tried to find a way to remake a makefile and failed,
will make diagnose the missing makefile as a fatal error.
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.
So basically, make cannot execute the recipe for remaking the include file before he has finished to parse the main Makefile. So it raises a warning, continue to read the Makefile, find the rule for remaking the included file, remake it, and then restart itself (that is explained in details in the How Makefiles Are Remade section).
Going back to the manual, it states there's two forms for automakes include mechanism:
include $(srcdir)/file
and
include $(top_srcdir)/file
neither of which match your include. So I'd imagine the include is actually run by the underlying make whatever that might be (e.g. GNU Make, though of course other make programs have this functionality as well).
Now for the questions:
Why does it work?
As explained in another answer, GNU Make will attempt to make a missing included makefile, before failing.
Is this the correct way to do this or should I use another approach, e.g. starting new instances of make within Makefile
Generating makefiles is one of the tasks autotools do, either through autoconf or automake. Going through multiple stages of "making makefiles" seems prone to error (and hard to maintain). Recursive make has similar problems.
The reason is that this include file is quite long.
automake include statements will happily paste together a large makefile out of smaller components.
Further in the real program it is not just only one file but several and the generation process for this file can change from time to time.
It's hard to recommend what to suggest to do in autotools based on how the "changes" are determined. Since it seems you're also using libtool adding/removing sources to libs (or entire libs) there can be effected by conditionals, variables, etc.
I have a Variable in make that is dependant on a file that must be built before the variable can be set, is there a way to get this to work?
parsable_file: dependancies
commands to make parsable_file
targets=$(shell parse_cmd parsable_file)
$(targets): parsable_file
command to make targets
.phony: all
all:$(targets)
If I run $ make parsable_file && make all this will work (I get an error that parse_cmd cant find parsable_file but it works), but just make all will not work. Is there a Make idiom for this?
Set the variable in a file that you include in the main makefile and include a rule in the main makefile for how to build it (the one you already have should be fine).
I believe that will do what you want.
See Including Other Makefiles and How Makefiles Are Remade (which is linked from the first section) for more details on this concept.
Also, unless parseable_file has a usage independent from that parse_cmd call, it should be possible to do the creation and the parsing at the same time and just have the resulting makefile contain the correct value for $(targets) in one step.