I wrote a Makefile and I can't get it to work. I have an option which is supposed to select which processor to compile to. However, when I run make from the commandline it says:
tandex#tandex-P-6860FX:~/emulators/nintendo sdks/3DS SDK [HomeBrew]$ make
gcc -march=arm7tdmi -static -fexceptions -fnon-call-exceptions -fstack-check test.c -c
test.c:1:0: error: bad value (arm7tdmi) for -march= switch
make: *** [ALL] Error 1
But in the man pages for gcc, it states that arm7tdmi is a permissible value. Am I missing something?
Makefile:
#3DS Compilation Makefile (c) TanDex (TEQ)RunawayFreelancers
#
#Version 0.99 (Alpha) For *nix Devices
#
#Please Check Back Soon for 3rd SDK
#SELECT THE COMPILER TO USE! GCC RECOMMENDED!
#FOR SANITY SAKE, USE C FILES WITH GCC AND CPP FILES WITH G++
CC=gcc
#CC=g++
#OBJECTCOPY REFERENCE, DO NOT REMOVE
OBJC=objcopy
OBJREFS= -O Binary
#SELECT THE PROCESSOR TO TUNE IT TO. ARMV7 (Nintendo DS) or ARMV9(Nintendo DS
(Graphical Support))
#or ARM11 Core ARM1176JZ-S and ARM1176JZF-S (3DS Processor? Not Sure if Correct. Try
and see if they Work?)
#
#NOTE: DS GAMES REQUIRE BOTH A ARM7 AND ARM9 BINARY. RUN THIS TWICE (ONCE FOR EACH)
#
#UNCOMMENT FOR PROCESOR
PROCESSOR=arm7tdmi
#PROCESSOR=arm946e-s
#PROCESSOR=arm1176jz-s
#PROCESSOR=arm1176jzf-s
#FILES
#
#PLACE ALL OF THE FILES HERE, THAT ARE BEING COMPILED!
FILES=test.c
#SET BIN FILE NAME BASED ON PROCESSOR SELECTED
ifeq($(PROCESSOR),arm7tdmi)\
NAME=ARM7.BIN
ifeq($(PROCESSOR), arm946e-s)\
NAME=ARM9.BIN
ifeq($(PROCESSOR), arm1176jz-s)\
NAME=ARM11.BIN
ifeq($(PROCESSOR), arm1176jzf-s)\
NAME=ARM11.BIN
#CREATE OBJECTS
ifeq($(CC), gcc)\
OBJECTS=$(FILES:.c=.o)
ifeq($(CC), g++)\
OBJECTS=$(FILES:.cpp=.o)
#FLAGS! DO NOT CHANGE THESE!!!!!!!!!!! THAT MEANS YOU!!!!!
#
#FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO KNOW WHAT THESE DO, HERE THEY ARE:
#-mtune=$(PROCESSOR) FORE THE COMPILER TO TUNE OUTPUT TO THE SPECIFIED
PROCESSOR
#-static REQUIRED FOR CLEAN BINARY OUTPUT?? (NOT SURE WHAT THIS
DOES, BUT WAS SUGESTED ON A POST ON STACKOVERFLOW)
#-fexceptions FORCE EXCEPTIONS
#-fnon-call-exceptions FORCE EXCEPTIONS TO ONLY BE RETURNED BY THE SYSTEM
(MEMORY AND FPU INSTRUTIONS FOR EXAMPLE)
#-fstack-check FORCE STACK CHECKING (DS / 3DS USE AWKWARD STACK
IMPLEMENTATION)
CFLAGS=-march=$(PROCESSOR) -static -fexceptions -fnon-call-exceptions -fstack-check
ALL:
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(FILES) -c
.c.o:
$(OBJC) $(OBJREFS) $(OBJECTS) $(NAME)
.cpp.o:
$(OBJC) $(OBJREFS) $(OBJECTS) $(NAME)
You are probably not calling the right gcc. You seem to be calling the gcc installed in your system, rather than the one that comes with the 3DS SDK.
It appears the problem is with -march=arm7tdmi.
I think the workaround is to avoid using -march=arm7tdmi; and use -march=cpu-type, where cpu-type is one of the ones listed at 3.17.4 ARM Options of the GCC manual.
Here's part of the page:
-march=name
This specifies the name of the target ARM architecture. GCC uses this name to determine what kind of instructions it can emit when
generating assembly code. This option can be used in conjunction with
or instead of the -mcpu= option. Permissible names are: ‘armv2’,
‘armv2a’, ‘armv3’, ‘armv3m’, ‘armv4’, ‘armv4t’, ‘armv5’, ‘armv5t’,
‘armv5e’, ‘armv5te’, ‘armv6’, ‘armv6j’, ‘armv6t2’, ‘armv6z’,
‘armv6kz’, ‘armv6-m’, ‘armv7’, ‘armv7-a’, ‘armv7-r’, ‘armv7-m’,
‘armv7e-m’, ‘armv7ve’, ‘armv8-a’, ‘armv8-a+crc’, ‘iwmmxt’, ‘iwmmxt2’,
‘ep9312’.
Related
I have a project that basically compiles from the command line in the following form:
g++ -o stack_raster stack_raster.cpp -lgdal -lboost_filesystem -lboost_system
I made a Makefile, and this is the content:
CXX =g++
LDDFLAGS = -lgdal -lboost_system -lboost_filesystem
all: clean stack_raster
clean:
rm -f stack_raster
However I got a collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status.
A second variation of my Makefile I tried was:
CXX = g++
CPPFLAGS = -lgdal -lboost_system -lboost_filesystem
all: clean stack_raster
clean:
rem -f stack_raster
but I still receive the following message (even though the compile flags appear as they should for my program to compile successfully).
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
<builtin>: recipe for target `stack_raster` failed
make: *** [stack_raster] Error 1
Does anyone could help me with a reference or hint about my problem, and how could I tackle it?
Does anyone could help me with a reference or hint about my problem, and how could I tackle it?
To begin with, you should have a look at the actual link command that make executed. It should have been echoed to make's output just before the error message from collect2. Understanding what's wrong with the command is the first step in determining how to fix your makefile.
In the first case, the command is probably something like
g++ stack_raster.cpp -o stack_raster
In the second, it is probably something like
g++ -lgdal -lboost_system -lboost_filesystem stack_raster.cpp -o stack_raster
The latter is probably also very similar to what you would get with the first makefile if you corrected the spelling of LDDFLAGS to LDFLAGS.
You will note that the library flags come in a different place in that command than they do in your manual command, and I assume you know that the order of objects and library flags on the linker command line is significant to Unix-style linkers such as GNU's (which is the one that the g++ driver will use).
You can certainly fix this by writing an explicit rule, as you describe in your own answer, but your makes' built-in rules may be up to the task, too. If you are using GNU make then they certainly are. For this purpose it is useful to know what the built-in rules actually are, and essential to know what the variables on which these rules depend mean.
Specifically,
LDFLAGS provides options to pass when invoking the linker, and conventionally, they appear on the command line before the objects being linked. As a result, this variable typically is not appropriate for specifying libraries (but it is fine for other link-specific options, such as -L to add directories to the library search path).
CPPFLAGS provides options for modulating the behavior of the C preprocessor (including when compiling C++). These do not typically appear at all in link(-only) commands executed by make, but they will appear (early) in commands for compiling object files from C or C++ sources, and in rules for building executables directly from C or C++ sources.
Neither of those is what you want, but if you are using GNU make, then its documentation for the former explicitly tells you what (with that make implementation) you should do instead:
Extra flags to give to compilers when they are supposed to invoke the
linker, ‘ld’, such as -L. Libraries (-lfoo) should be added to the
LDLIBS variable instead.
(emphasis added)
In GNU make, and perhaps some others, the LDLIBS variable serves exactly the purpose you need: to specify the libraries to link. These will appear at the end of the link command line from built-in rules, as you can confirm from GNU make's catalog of implicit rules, or from the list obtainable by running make -p in a directory containing no makefile.
So, with GNU make you can get the build you seem to want from the built-in rules, with this:
CXX = g++
LDLIBS = -lgdal -lboost_system -lboost_filesystem
all: clean stack_raster
clean:
rm -f stack_raster
In closing, I note that cleaning before building by default, as your examples do and mine imitates, largely defeats the purpose of using make instead of a simple script. Part of the point of make is to do the minimum work necessary, and if your target executable is present and not out of date with respect to its sources then there is no reason to force it to be rebuilt.
Check out the answer:
Set up my makefile to compile C with just "make"
YOu have to specify in the Makefile the file you want to create in this case stack_raster.exe and the objective file in this case stack_raster.cpp and specify the command line arguments you normally pass for compiling. So the Makefile would be something like:
CXX=g++
stack_raster.exe: stack_raster.cpp
g++ -o stack_raster.exe stack_raster.cpp -lgdal -lboost_filesystem -lboost_system
all: clean stack_raster.exe
clean:
rm -f stack_raster.exe
The autotools documentation is very confusing. I am writng Fortran, so the AM_CFLAGS equivalent is AM_FCFLAGS. The two work exactly the same way (presumably).
First off, what actually "is" AM_CFLAGS, conceptually? Clearly, the "CFLAGS" bit is to do with setting compiler flags. But what does the "AM_" part mean?
There seems to be conflicting advice as to how to use it. Some say don't put it in Makefile.am, and some say don't put it in configure.ac. Who is right?
Here is my current Makefile.am:
AM_FCFLAGS = -Wall -O0 -C -fbacktrace
.f90.o:
$(FC) -c $(AM_FCFLAGS) $<
What I want to happen is to compile with "-Wall -O0 -C -fbacktrace" by default if I'm compiling with gfortran. However, a user might want to use a different compiler, eg FC=ifort, in which case they'll probably have to pass in FCFLAGS="whatever" and completely scrap AM_FCFLAGS
Can the user also override the default AM_FCFLAGS from the configure option if they're still using gfortran?
Basically, WTF?
AM_FCFLAGS (and similarly AM_CFLAGS and similar) are designed to not be user-overridable, so you should not put those options there unless you want them to always be present.
Users can pass their own FCFLAGS as part of their ./configure call — what you can do, if you want to default to those rather than what autoconf will default by itself, is to change configure.ac and compare the default flags (which to be honest I don't know for Fortran) to the current FCFLAGS, and if they match, replace FCFLAGS with your defaults.
In Makefile.am I had
AM_CFCFLAGS = -Wall -O0 -C -fbacktrace
Bad idea! It assumes that folks are using gfortran and/or won't want to override those defaults. So I deleted that line.
Instead, I now have the following lines in configure.ac:
AC_PROG_FC([gfortran], [Fortran 90]) # we need a Fortran 90 compiler
AS_IF([test x$FC = xgfortran -a x$ac_cv_env_FCFLAGS_set = x],
AC_SUBST([FCFLAGS], ["-Wall -O0 -C -fbacktrace"])
[Set some flags automatically if using gfortran])
AC_PROG_FC checks for gfortran that meets with Fortran 90 standards, and automatically sets FC and FCFLAGS.
The last 3 lines set sensible defaults if the user is using gfortran, but hasn't set FCFLAGS.
I discovered about ac_cv_env_FCFLAGS_set when I looked at config.log. It is set to "set" if the user sets their own FCFLAGS.
In Makefile.am I now have rules like:
.f90.o:
$(FC) -c $(FCFLAGS) $<
datetime_module.mod : datetime.o
datetime.o : datetime.f90 mod_clock.o mod_datetime.o mod_strftime.o mod_timedelta.o
mod_clock.o: mod_clock.f90 mod_datetime.o mod_timedelta.o
mod_datetime.o: mod_datetime.f90 mod_constants.o mod_strftime.o mod_timedelta.o
mod_timedelta.o: mod_timedelta.f90
It's starting to make sense now.
I'm trying to compile AODV for ARM linux. I use a SabreLite as a board with kernel version 3.0.35_4.1.0. It's worth mention that i'm using openembedded to create my Linux Distribution for my board.
The AODV source code (http://sourceforge.net/projects/aodvuu/) has a README file which give some indications on how to install it on ARM as stated a bit here.
(http://w3.antd.nist.gov/wctg/aodv_kernel/kaodv_arm.html).
I was able to upgrade the makefile in order to be used with post 2.6 kernel version ( as stated above, i have the 3.0.35_4.1.0 kernel version).
So, basically, what i am trying to do is that i have to create a module (let's say file.ko) and then load it into the ARM (with insmod file.ko command).
To do that, i am using a cross compiler which some values are stated below:
echo $CC :
arm-oe-linux-gnueabi-gcc -march=armv7-a -mthumb-interwork -mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=neon -mtune=cortex-a9 --sysroot=/usr/local/oecore-x86_64/sysroots/cortexa9hf-vfp-neon-oe-linux-gnueabi
echo $ARCH=arm
echo $CFLAGS: O2 -pipe -g -feliminate-unused-debug-types
echo $LD :
arm-oe-linux-gnueabi-ld --sysroot=/usr/local/oecore-x86_64/sysroots/cortexa9hf-vfp-neon-oe-linux-gnueabi
echo $LDFLAGS :
-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--hash-style=gnu -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,--as-needed
when i launch "make command", i get the following errors:
LD [M] /home/scof/script_emulation/AODV/aodv-uu/lnx/kaodv.o
arm-oe-linux-gnueabi-ld: unrecognized option '-Wl,-O1'
arm-oe-linux-gnueabi-ld: use the --help option for usage information
It states that there is something wrong with the linker. This linker comes from the cross compilation tools and i normally shouldn't touch it.
Anyway, to get this above errors fixed, i try to withdraw the LDFLAGS like this:
export LDFLAGS='',
and after this, the make command works and i get the module kaodv.ko. But when i insert it into my ARM to check, it does not work. It actually freeze my terminal
So my question is, do i have to specify the LDFLAGS when compiling ? Does withdrawing LDFLAGS can have impact on the generated kernel module.
Actually, i try to understand where might be the problem and the only thing that come to me is that may be i should not change manually the LDFLAGS. But if i don't change de LDFLAGS, i get the unrecognized option error.
My second question related to that is, what are the possibly value of LDFLAGS
in ARM compilation
Thanks !!
echo $LDFLAGS : -Wl,-O1 -Wl,--hash-style=gnu -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,--as-needed
There are two common methods of invoking the linker in a GCC-based toolchain. One is to do it directly, but another is to use GCC as a front end to invoke the linker, rather than invoke it directly. When doing this, options intended for the linker are prefixed with -Wl, so that GCC knows to pass them through rather than interpret them itself.
In your case the error message from LD itself
arm-oe-linux-gnueabi-ld: unrecognized option '-Wl,-O1'
Indicates that your build system is passing LDFLAGS directly to the linker, and not by way of GCC.
Therefore, you should remove the -Wl, prefix and your LDFLAGS would instead be
-O1 --hash-style=gnu --as-needed --as-needed
(the duplication of the last argument is probably pointless but benign)
-O1 is an option that tells the linker to optimize. I believe it something new, and your linker may be slightly out of date. Try removing -Wl,-O1, it should still work.
I was wondering if there was any sample code for Makefiles (make) and CMakeLists.txt (cmake) that both do the same thing (the only difference being that one is written in make and the other in cmake).
I tried looking for 'cmake vs make', but I never found any code comparisons. It would be really helpful to understand the differences, even if just for a simple case.
The following Makefile builds an executable named prog from the sources
prog1.c, prog2.c, prog3.c and main.c. prog is linked against libmystatlib.a
and libmydynlib.so which are both also built from source. Additionally, prog uses
the library libstuff.a in stuff/lib and its header in stuff/include. The
Makefile by default builds a release target, but offers also a debug target:
#Makefile
CC = gcc
CPP = g++
RANLIB = ar rcs
RELEASE = -c -O3
DEBUG = -c -g -D_DEBUG
INCDIR = -I./stuff/include
LIBDIR = -L./stuff/lib -L.
LIBS = -lstuff -lmystatlib -lmydynlib
CFLAGS = $(RELEASE)
PROGOBJS = prog1.o prog2.o prog3.o
prog: main.o $(PROGOBJS) mystatlib mydynlib
$(CC) main.o $(PROGOBJS) $(LIBDIR) $(LIBS) -o prog
debug: CFLAGS=$(DEBUG)
debug: prog
mystatlib: mystatlib.o
$(RANLIB) libmystatlib.a mystatlib.o
mydynlib: mydynlib.o
$(CPP) -shared mydynlib.o -o libmydynlib.so
%.o: %.c
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(INCDIR) $< -o $#
%.o: %.cpp
$(CPP) $(CFLAGS) $(INCDIR) -fPIC $< -o $#
Here is a CMakeLists.txtthat does (almost) exactly the same, with some comments to underline the
similarities to the Makefile:
#CMakeLists.txt
cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 2.8) # stuff not directly
project(example) # related to building
include_directories(${CMAKE_SOURCE_DIR}/stuff/include) # -I flags for compiler
link_directories(${CMAKE_SOURCE_DIR}/stuff/lib) # -L flags for linker
set(PROGSRC prog1.c prog2.c prog3.c) # define variable
add_executable(prog main.c ${PROGSRC}) # define executable target prog, specify sources
target_link_libraries(prog mystatlib mydynlib stuff) # -l flags for linking prog target
add_library(mystatlib STATIC mystatlib.c) # define static library target mystatlib, specify sources
add_library(mydynlib SHARED mydynlib.cpp) # define shared library target mydynlib, specify sources
#extra flags for linking mydynlib
set_target_properties(mydynlib PROPERTIES POSITION_INDEPENDENT_CODE TRUE)
#alternatively:
#set_target_properties(mydynlib PROPERTIES COMPILE_FLAGS "-fPIC")
In this simple example, the most important differences are:
CMake recognizes which compilers to use for which kind of source. Also, it
invokes the right sequence of commands for each type of target. Therefore, there
is no explicit specification of commands like $(CC) ..., $(RANLIB) ... and so on.
All usual compiler/linker flags dealing with inclusion of header files, libraries, etc.
are replaced by platform independent / build system independent commands.
Debugging flags are included by either setting the variable CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE to "Debug",
or by passing it to CMake when invoking the program: cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE:STRING=Debug.
CMake offers also the platform independent inclusion of the '-fPIC' flag (via
the POSITION_INDEPENDENT_CODE property) and many others. Still, more obscure settings can be implemented by hand in CMake just as well as in a Makefile (by using COMPILE_FLAGS
and similar properties). Of course CMake really starts to shine when third party
libraries (like OpenGL) are included in a portable manner.
The build process has one step if you use a Makefile, namely typing make at the command line. For CMake, there are two steps: First, you need to setup your build environment (either by typing cmake <source_dir> in your build directory or by running some GUI client). This creates a Makefile or something equivalent, depending on the build system of your choice (e.g. make on Unixes or VC++ or MinGW + Msys on Windows). The build system can be passed to CMake as a parameter; however, CMake makes reasonable default choices depending on your system configuration. Second, you perform the actual build in the selected build system.
Sources and build instructions are available at https://github.com/rhoelzel/make_cmake.
Grab some software that uses CMake as its buildsystem (there's plenty of opensource projects to choose from as an example). Get the source code and configure it using CMake. Read resulting makefiles and enjoy.
One thing to keep in mind that those tools don't map one-to-one. The most obvious difference is that CMake scans for dependencies between different files (e.g. C header and source files), whereas make leaves that to the makefile authors.
If this question is about a sample Makefile output of the CMakeList.txt file then please check the cmake-backend sources and generate one such Makefile. If it is not then adding to the reply of #Roberto I am trying to make it simple by hiding the details.
CMake function
While Make is flexible tool for rules and recipe, CMake is a layer of abstraction that also adds the configuration feature.
My plain CMakeLists.txt will look like the following,
cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 2.8)
project(example)
file(GLOB testapp_SOURCES *.cc)
add_executable(testapp ${testapp_SOURCES})
Note, that CMake hides how the build can be done. We only specified what is the input and output.
The CMakeLists.txt contains list of function-calls that are defined by cmake.
(CMake function) Vs Make rules
In Makefile the rules and recipes are used instead of functions . In addition to function-like feature, rules and recipes provide chaining. My minimalistic Makefile will look like the following,
-include "executable.mk"
TARGETS=testapp.bin
all:${TARGETS}
While the executable.mk will look like the following,
SOURCES=$(wildcard *.cpp)
OBJECTS=$(SOURCES:.cpp=.o)
DEPS=$(SOURCES:.cpp=.d)
%.bin:$(OBJECTS)
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) -o $# $^ $(LFLAGS) $(LIBS)
.PHONY: all clean
clean:
$(RM) $(OBJECTS) $(DEPS) $(TARGETS)
-include $(DEPS)
Starting from the scratch I shall start with a Makefile like the following,
all: testapp.bin
testapp.bin:sourcea.o sourcb.o
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) -o $# $^ $(LFLAGS) $(LIBS)
.PHONY: all clean
clean:
$(RM) $(OBJECTS) testapp.bin
I got this snippet from here and modified it. Note that some implicit-rules are added to this file which can be found in the makefile-documentation. Some implicit variables are also relevant here.
Note, that Makefile provides the detail recipe showing how the build can be done. It is possible to write executable.mk to keep the details defined in one file. In that way the makefile can be reduced as I showed earlier.
Internal Variables in CMake and Make
Now getting little advanced, in CMake we can set a compiler flag like the following,
set(CMAKE_C_FLAGS "-Wall")
Please find out more about CMake default variables in CMakeCache.txt file.
The CMake code above will be equivalent to Make code below,
CFLAGS = -Wall
Note that CFLAGS is an internal variable in Make, the same way, CMAKE_C_FLAGS is internal variable in CMake .
adding include and library path in CMake
We can do it in cmake using functions.
target_include_directories(testapp PRIVATE "myincludes")
list(APPEND testapp_LIBRARIES
mytest mylibrarypath
)
target_link_libraries(testapp ${testapp_LIBRARIES})
Vs adding include and library path in Make
We can add include and libraries by adding lines like the following,
INCLUDES += -Imyincludes
LIBS += -Lmylibrarypath -lmytest
Note this lines above can be generated from auto-gen tools or pkg-config. (though Makefile is not dependent of auto-config tools)
CMake configure/tweek
Normally it is possible to generate some config.h file just like auto-config tools by using configure_file function. It is possible to do more trick writing custom functions. And finally we can select a config like the following,
cmake --build . --config "Release"
It is possible to add some configurable option using the option function.
Makefile configure/tweak
If somehow we need to compile it with some debug flag, we can invoke the make like,
make CXXFLAGS=NDEBUG
I think internal variables, Makefile-rules and CMake-functions are good start for the comparison, good luck with more digging.
I understand that CFLAGS (or CXXFLAGS for C++) are for the compiler, whereas CPPFLAGS is used by the preprocessor.
But I still don't understand the difference.
I need to specify an include path for a header file that is included with #include -- because #include is a preprocessor directive, is the preprocessor (CPPFLAGS) the only thing I care about?
Under what circumstances do I need to give the compiler an extra include path?
In general, if the preprocessor finds and includes needed header files, why does it ever need to be told about extra include directories? What use is CFLAGS at all?
(In my case, I actually found that BOTH of these allow me to compile my program, which adds to the confusion... I can use CFLAGS OR CPPFLAGS to accomplish my goal (in autoconf context at least). What gives?)
The implicit make rule for compiling a C program is
%.o:%.c
$(CC) $(CPPFLAGS) $(CFLAGS) -c -o $# $<
where the $() syntax expands the variables. As both CPPFLAGS and CFLAGS are used in the compiler call, which you use to define include paths is a matter of personal taste. For instance if foo.c is a file in the current directory
make foo.o CPPFLAGS="-I/usr/include"
make foo.o CFLAGS="-I/usr/include"
will both call your compiler in exactly the same way, namely
gcc -I/usr/include -c -o foo.o foo.c
The difference between the two comes into play when you have multiple languages which need the same include path, for instance if you have bar.cpp then try
make bar.o CPPFLAGS="-I/usr/include"
make bar.o CFLAGS="-I/usr/include"
then the compilations will be
g++ -I/usr/include -c -o bar.o bar.cpp
g++ -c -o bar.o bar.cpp
as the C++ implicit rule also uses the CPPFLAGS variable.
This difference gives you a good guide for which to use - if you want the flag to be used for all languages put it in CPPFLAGS, if it's for a specific language put it in CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS etc. Examples of the latter type include standard compliance or warning flags - you wouldn't want to pass -std=c99 to your C++ compiler!
You might then end up with something like this in your makefile
CPPFLAGS=-I/usr/include
CFLAGS=-std=c99
CXXFLAGS=-Weffc++
The CPPFLAGS macro is the one to use to specify #include directories.
Both CPPFLAGS and CFLAGS work in your case because the make(1) rule combines both preprocessing and compiling in one command (so both macros are used in the command).
You don't need to specify . as an include-directory if you use the form #include "...". You also don't need to specify the standard compiler include directory. You do need to specify all other include-directories.
You are after implicit make rules.
To add to those who have mentioned the implicit rules, it's best to see what make has defined implicitly and for your env using:
make -p
For instance:
%.o: %.c
$(COMPILE.c) $(OUTPUT_OPTION) $<
which expands
COMPILE.c = $(CXX) $(CXXFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) $(TARGET_ARCH) -c
This will also print # environment data. Here, you will find GCC's include path among other useful info.
C_INCLUDE_PATH=/usr/include
In make, when it comes to search, the paths are many, the light is one... or something to that effect.
C_INCLUDE_PATH is system-wide, set it in your shell's *.rc.
$(CPPFLAGS) is for the preprocessor include path.
If you need to add a general search path for make, use:
VPATH = my_dir_to_search
... or even more specific
vpath %.c src
vpath %.h include
make uses VPATH as a general search path so use cautiously. If a file exists in more than one location listed in VPATH, make will take the first occurrence in the list.
I installed httpd on Ubuntu 18.04 using the CPPFLAGS variable for the -DLINUX flag. When run, CPPFLAGS scans the code from top to bottom, file by file, looking for directives before compiling, and will not be extended by other meaningful things like size optimization, flags that do not increase the size of the output file; under the type of processor; to reduce the size of the code and speed up the program; disable all variables except case. The only difference between CPPFLAGS and CFLAGS is that CFLAGS can be set to specify additional switches to be passed to the compiler. That is, the CFLAGS environment variable creates a directory in the installation path (eg CFLAGS=-i/opt/include) to add debugging information to the executable target's path: include general alarm messages; turning off alarm information; independent location generation; display compiler driver, preprocessor, compiler version number.
Standard way to set CPPFLAGS:
sudo ./configure --enable-unixd=DLINUX #for example
list of some known variables:
CPPFLAGS - is the variable name for flags to the C preprocessor.
CXXFLAGS - is the standard variable name for flags to the C++ compiler.
CFLAGS is - the standard name for a variable with compilation flags.
LDFLAGS - should be used for search flags/paths (-L) - i.e. -L/usr/lib (/usr/lib are library binaries).
LDLIBS - for linking libraries.
CPPFLAGS seems to be an invention of GNU Make, referenced in some of its built-in recipes.
If your program is built by some Free software distributions, you may find that some of them require packages to interpolate this variable, using CPPFLAGS for passing down options like -D_WHATEVER=1 for passing down a macro definition.
This separation is a poor idea and completely unnecessary in the GNU environment because:
There is a way to run gcc to do preprocessing only (while ignoring compiler options unrelated to preprocessing).
The stand-alone GNU cpp is tolerant to compiler options, such as -W warnings that do not pertain to preprocessing and even code generation options like -fstrict-aliasing and the linker-pass through like -Wl,--whatever.
So generally speaking, build systems that need to call the stand-alone preprocessor for whatever reason can just pass it $(CFLAGS).
As an application developer writing a Makefile, you cannot rely on the existence of CPPFLAGS. Users who are not insider experts in open source building won't know about CPPFLAGS, and will do things like make CFLAGS=-Dfoo=bar when building your program. If that doesn't work, they will be annoyed.
As a distro maintainer, you cannot rely on programs to pull in CPPFLAGS; even otherwise well-behaved ones that pull in CFLAGS, LDFLAGS and LDLIBS.
It's easy enough for the application developers to write GNU Make code to separate preprocessor flags out of $(CFLAGS):
cpp_only_flags := $(foreach arg, \
$(CFLAGS), \
$(or $(filter -D%,$(arg)), \
$(filter -U%,$(arg)), \
$(filter -I%,$(arg)), \
$(filter -iquote%,$(arg)), \
$(filter -W%,$(arg)), \
$(filter -M%,$(arg)))) \
$(CPPFLAGS) # also pull this in
all:
#echo cpp_only_flags == $(cpp_only_flags)
Demo:
$ make CFLAGS="-Wall -I/path/to/include -W -UMAC -DFOO=bar -o foo.o -lm"
cpp_only_flags == -Wall -I/path/to/include -W -UMAC -DFOO=bar
In the case of the GNU compiler and preprocessor, this is probably unnnecessary; but it illustrates a technique that could be used for non-GNU compilers and preprocessors, in a build system based on GNU Make.