Considering this (very) simple Makefile,
all: a b
#echo done
a:
touch $#
b:
touch $#
I didn't get the behaviour I expected.
In fact, I wish my rule "all" to be executed only if one of its depencies isn't up to date.
However on first $ make I get
touch a
touch b
done
And on others
done
I undenstand that "up to date" normally qualify a file but...
Is there any way to have rule "all" considered up to date when all its dependies are ?
Thanks a lot,
ps: I know the trick $ touch all, but that's not the point
No. If the target does not exist then make will always run the recipe.
There are hacky ways that your all recipe could check to see if any of the prerequisites had been built and behave differently if so. At least, if you're using GNU make.
ETA:
One way would be to add a $(eval BUILT = 1) to each target, then in the all target you can see if BUILT is set. This requires a moderately recent version of GNU make:
BUILT =
all: a b
#[ -n '$(BUILT)' ] && echo done
a:
touch $# $(eval BUILT = 1)
b:
touch $# $(eval BUILT = 1)
Related
I want to check whether a string variable contains a specified substring in the Makefile. The purpose is to clean the sub folders.
I used the below code, but it did not work.
SERVICES_LIST = A_Service B_Service C_Service #example
SPECIFIC_SERVICE_LIST = A_Service B_Service
clean:
#list='$(SERVICES_LIST)';for subdir in $$list;do \
echo "clean in $$subdir";\
if [[ "*$$subdir*" == "$(SPECIFIC_SERVICE_LIST)" ]];then\
make $$subdir clean;\
fi;\
done;\
This hasn't much to do with make, because substantially all the logic involved is expressed in the shell language. In particular, you seem to be assuming bash.
The problem is here:
if [[ "*$$subdir*" == "$(SPECIFIC_SERVICE_LIST)" ]];then\
You seem to by trying to match (make's expansion of) "$(SPECIFIC_SERVICE_LIST)" against a glob pattern formed as (make's expansion of) "*$$subdir*". But the left-hand side is quoted, so it is not interpreted as a pattern, and the == operator performs (exact) string matching, not pattern matching.
One of the main ways to apply such pattern-matching tests in the shell language is with a case construct, because the selection expressions used with it are always interpreted as globs. That might look like so in your makefile:
case "$(SPECIFIC_SERVICE_LIST)" in *$$subdir*) make $$subdir clean ;; esac
But the whole thing seems pretty non-idiomatic. Generally speaking, a makefile is tuned to the project. Even if it is dynamically generated in part or in whole, it is reasonable and appropriate to design your build system so that the clean target can do something more like this:
clean:
for subdir in $(SPECIFIC_SERVICE_LIST); do make -C $$subdir clean; done
... or maybe like this:
clean: clean_services
...
clean_services:
for subdir in $(SPECIFIC_SERVICE_LIST); do make -C $$subdir clean; done
I would make it more make way by defining a target for cleaning up any supported service and then call all required clean targets as a prerequisite to clean. This has additional advantage to make clean in parallel when running with -j option as opposed to strictly sequential shell loop.
$ cat Makefile
SERVICES_LIST = A_Service B_Service C_Service #example
SPECIFIC_SERVICE_LIST = A_Service B_Service
.PHONY: $(addsuffix -clean, $(SERVICES_LIST))
$(addsuffix -clean, $(SERVICES_LIST)): %-clean:
$(MAKE) -C $* clean
.PHONY: clean
clean: $(addsuffix -clean, $(SPECIFIC_SERVICE_LIST))
I know makefile won't allow using a target specific variable as a target prerequisite.
My question is slightly different : is there a way to generate the same file differently depending on what target was called ?
For instance, let's say I want to be able to generate file_to_generate using two different methods that I call using make example_target_1 or make example_target_2
As an example, the following code gives 2 different recipes for the same file :
example_target_1 : file_to_generate-receipe1
example_target_2 : file_to_generate-receipe2
file_to_generate-receipe1:
/* some shell code here that end up generating file_to_generate */
file_to_generate-receipe2:
/* some different shell code here that also generates file_to_generate*/
issuing make example_target_1 will generate the file using one recipe while issuing make example_target_2 will do the same using the other recipe.
The issue using this is both example_target_1 and example_target_2 are done without checking if file_to_generate is up-to-date as the name of the target isn't really a file.
Is their a way to get the same behavior and still check if the file is up-to-date ?
One way that it can be achieved may be with use of target-specific variables, like so:
$ cat Makefile
target1 target2: file_to_generate
cat $<
target1: RECIPE=recipe1
target2: RECIPE=recipe2
file_to_generate:
$(if $(filter recipe1,$(RECIPE)),$(recipe1))
$(if $(filter recipe2,$(RECIPE)),$(recipe2))
define recipe1
echo recipe1
echo foo > $#
endef
define recipe2
echo recipe2
echo bar > $#
endef
Even though it works, I would strongly advise against such design. Generating a file in a non-deterministic way may easily lead to non-trivial errors. For example, using this approach you will generate a file and it will be checked if it's up to date, but there is no way for make to guess whether it was generated with recipe1 or recipe2. Therefore the next time you call a different target, the file will not be regenerated (since it already exists), even though the recipe has changed:
$ make target1
echo recipe1
recipe1
echo foo > file_to_generate
cat file_to_generate
foo
$ make target2
cat file_to_generate
foo
When called with target2 first, the file will have different contents, which will be reused in target1 as well:
$ rm file_to_generate
$ make target2
echo recipe2
recipe2
echo bar > file_to_generate
cat file_to_generate
bar
$ make target1
cat file_to_generate
bar
This may or may not be desirable, you need to be aware of such behavior.
I have a makefile with a rule that produces multiple outputs. To work around the issue of this rule often being run multiple times when run in parallel, I've used a dummy "timestamp file". I also have a rule that depends on the one of the outputs of this "multi-output" rule.
When all this is run from a clean state, it all works fine. However, if the source of the multi-output rule is updated, the other rule is not run, until Make is run again.
I've looked at the debug output, but haven't been able to make much headway. It almost seems like Make might be caching the old timestamp of the previous version of the multi-output file?
Hopefully the below demonstrates the problem adequately.
$ cat Makefile
all: data.txt
multioutput.stamp: sourcefile.txt
touch multioutput1.txt
touch multioutput2.txt
touch $#
FILES=multioutput1.txt multioutput2.txt
$(FILES): multioutput.stamp
data.txt: multioutput1.txt
touch data.txt
$ touch sourcefile.txt
$ make
touch multioutput1.txt
touch multioutput2.txt
touch multioutput.stamp
touch data.txt
$ touch sourcefile.txt # update
$ make # data.txt is not updated!!
touch multioutput1.txt
touch multioutput2.txt
touch multioutput.stamp
$ make # except when it's run again??
touch data.txt
What am I doing wrong here, and what should I be doing instead?
You are lying to make. Don't do that.
Once you have run the recipe of a rule, make checks to see if a file has actually been updated by the recipe. If it has not changed, you don't have to re-make any target that lists the file as a dependency.
Here you have given no recipe for multioutput1.txt, just a dependency line:
multioutput1.txt: multioutput.stamp
Make knows there is no way to update multioutput1.txt.
Cheap fix
Force make to check the dependency by supplying an explicit recipe for multioutput1.txt.
Even an empty one will do:
${FILES}: multioutput.stamp ;
Yep, that's what the ; signifies — the first line of the recipe follows on the same line.
Better fix
The only way of saying to make "this recipe creates two files" is with a pattern rule.
Then there is no need for a multioutput.stamp.
.PHONY: all
all: data.txt
%1.txt %2.txt:
touch $*1.txt
touch $*2.txt
data.txt: multioutput1.txt multioutput2.txt
touch data.txt
Here $* in the recipe expands to whatever the % matched in the dependency line.
Why have I made data.txt depend on both multioutput files?
Here I took the view that if either of multioutput1 or multioutput2 were missing, we should probably run the recipe to create both.
YMMV.
Best Fix
YMMV but I don't like pattern rules.
They are too arbitrary for my tastes.
We observe that one of multioutput1.txt and multioutput2.txt will always be younger than the other.
They will never have the same timestamp assuming a modern filesystem.
.PHONY: all
all: data.txt
multioutput2.txt: start.stamp
touch $#
touch multioutput2.txt
multioutput1.txt: multioutput2.txt ;
data.txt: multioutput1.txt
touch data.txt
I want to create a makefile to be included in others, kind of as a "library", let's call it library.mak:
TARGET_FILES = a.txt b.txt c.txt d.txt
SRC_FOLDER = somewhere/else
.PHONY: all
all:
for target in ${TARGET_FILES} ; do \
echo -e "\nMaking $${target}:" ;\
${MAKE} ${MFLAGS} --no-print-directory $${target} ;\
done
.PHONY: ${TARGET_FILES}
${TARGET_FILES}:
cp ${SRC_FOLDER}/$# $#
The two rules are there to make all, as well as one specific target, respectively; using a default rule (which is the purpose of library.mak).
In my "user makefile" called Makefile, I want to then do this:
include library.mak
# special handling of c.txt
c.txt:
grep -v 'all except this' ${SRC_FOLDER}/$# > $#
As you can see, the user wants to be able to override the behaviour for some special cases. While this works, it always greets the user with the dreaded warning: overriding recipe for target and warning: ignoring old commands for target messages, even though the behaviour is as intended.
So here's the question: Can this be done in a different way that avoids these warnings, or is there a means to suppress them?
The warning says you overwrite a recipe for an explicit rule. And this is really wrong. It makes sense to use a pattern rule instead, like: %.txt: ${SRC_FOLDER}/%.txt. Then it's ok to have some explicit rule (c.txt: ${SRC_FOLDER}/c.txt) overwriting a recipe. Of course, it's not 100% the same, but, I think that should not be a problem. Anyway, putting an explicit rule into a reusable file is a crime.
Next, you constantly use "phonies" and rules w/o prerequisites even when you definitely should have them. This is bad. You're trying to make "make" work as a non-branching shell script. That's not only inefficient but also is a misuse. Basically, make can be viewed as "shell extension" capable of "branching on file timestamps in a sophisticated way". If you don't need it, don't use make at all.
Next, I see absolutely no reason to go into recursive make. Whatever, you're going to do, I believe, you can do without it. And even if you really need recursion, then write simply $(MAKE). $(MFLAGS) shoud not be used anymore (read this).
P.S. There's yet another (more flexible) option to define parameterized variables (macros). For example:
define nl :=
endef
define myrule.text
$1: $2/$1
#cp $$< $$#
endef
myrule = $(eval $(foreach foo$0,$1,$(call myrule.text,$(foo$0),$2)$(nl)))
...
# user makefile
# for everything except c.txt call predefined macro
$(call myrule,$(filter-out c.txt,$(TARGET_FILES)),$(SRC_FOLDER))
# for c.txt only
c.txt: $(SRC_FOLDER)/c.txt
grep -v 'all except this' $< >$#
But as you see, it's a bit of a "cryptic" stuff, and I don't feel like recommending it for a beginner.
As per the gnu make documentation, a pattern rule's "...recipe is executed only once to make all the targets." However, I have the following Makefile
.PHONY: entrypoint
entrypoint: test_1.cpp test_2.cpp
test_%.cpp:
echo $#
And running make produces:
echo test_1.cpp
test_1.cpp
echo test_2.cpp
test_2.cpp
I'm new to make, and I'm probably misunderstanding something, but the documentation seems misleading if clear.
$ make -v
GNU Make 4.0
...
You're misreading the documentation. It means, the recipe is run only one time assuming that all the target patterns in that rule will be created.
Since you have only one target pattern in your rule (test_%.cpp`) make knows that each time it runs that recipe it will create one output file matching that pattern. To create different targets that match that pattern it will run multiple instances of the recipe.
If you had a rule like this:
%.x %.y %.z :
dothings
then make would expect that a single invocation of the recipe dothings would create all the targets matching this pattern (e.g., foo.x, foo.y, and foo.z).
Contrast this with an explicit rule like this:
foo.x foo.y foo.z :
dothings
Make here treats this exactly as if you'd written this:
foo.x :
dothings
foo.y :
dothings
foo.z :
dothings
That is, to build all three of these targets it would run the recipe three times.
There's no way to tell make "please run this recipe one time and it will produce every single target that could possibly match the pattern foo_%.cpp".
The following functions construct a dynamic list of dependencies of your multiple-target where the non-existent files are named last. This is more or less the method named "Another attempt" in the link you gave, except that it doesn't trip over missing files and is able to make a missing file by giving it as target on the command line. What it does not: execute the multitarget recipe if one of the multitargets is out of date relative to the others, but I think this is more of wanted side effect than a problem. The only drawback is the syntactic ugliness as you have to write it into an eval expression which forces you to quote all variables in the recipe which shall be evaluated at execution time.
define newline :=
endef
list2rules = $(firstword $1) $(if $(word 2,$1),: $(word 2,$1)$(newline)$(call list2rules,$(wordlist 2,1000,$1)))
multitarget = $(call list2rules,$(wildcard $1) $(filter-out $(wildcard $1),$1))
.PHONY: all
targets = test1 test2 footest3
#$(info $(call multitarget,$(targets)))
all: somefile
somefile: $(targets)
touch somefile
# here we generate the dependency list on the spot. Only one recipe to update all targets.
$(eval $(call multitarget,\
$(targets)) : ; \
touch $(targets) \
)