Can wildcards be used in the static pattern rule context in GNU make? For example:
$(BUILD_DIR)/$(DEPENDENCIES) : */%.d : $(SOURCE_DIR)/%.c
...
Leave the $(SOURCE_DIR)/%.c off the static pattern rule, and enter the dependencies on a separate line. Maybe:
# Tell make "build/f.d: source/f.c" for each source file
$(foreach _,${srcs},$(eval ${BUILD_DIR}/$(notdir $_): $_))
${BUILD_DIR}/${DEPENDENCIES}: ${BUILD_DIR}/%.d:
...
This answers the question, though I share #Beta's opinion that this is not what you want.
Related
Consider the following makefile (and any hi.c):
.PHONY: analyze-%
hi: hi.c
gcc -o $# $<
%.json: %
touch $# # actually created by analysis-tool
analyze-%: %.json # why does this not work?
As my comment in the makefile points out, the implicit rule does not work:
$ make analyze-hi
make: *** No rule to make target 'analyze-hi'. Stop.
It only works after transforming it into a static pattern rule:
...
analyze-hi: analyze-%: %.json
Why is this the case? Shouldn't make be able to figure this out on its own, without me having to explicitly write the full target name? There is no ambiguity or anything (as far as I'm aware).
Pattern rules must have recipes. If they don't have a recipe then they're not creating a pattern rule, they're canceling one.
See https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Canceling-Rules.html
A static pattern rule, contrary to what's implied by its name, is not actually creating an implicit rule (pattern or suffix rule). It's creating explicit rules, just based on a pattern. Explicit rules don't have to have recipes.
I have a main Makefile that calls Makefiles placed in subfolders. For testing purposes I would like to add Match-Anything rule at the end of main Makefile.
This rule would be:
%:
make -e -C subdir $#
Are there any contrarguments for such a rule?
I think you meant "con", as in "pro or con", not "cont". "Con" is short for the Latin "contra".
For your question, the downside of adding a new "match anything" rule is that any file that doesn't exist, will try to be created using this rule. For example suppose you run include foo.mk and foo.mk doesn't exist... make will attempt to build foo.mk by running your rule. Basically it can be confusing. It's possible there could be some performance impact; if you run make -d and examine it you should see if your match-anything rule is being used at all during a normal build. I'm not sure if there are any other serious downsides.
By the way you should always only use the make variable $(MAKE) when invoking a sub-make in a recipe; never use the raw make command.
If you read the Catalog of Rules section of the GNU Make manual, it turns out that one of the suffixes that it recognizes is .out and there is a built-in rule:
%.out: %
# commands to execute (built-in):
#rm -f $#
cp $< $#
This means that if you have a file xyz in a directory, you can create xyz.out by simply typing make xyz.out.
My question is (two variants of the same question):
Who benefits from this rule?
In what circumstances is this used by people?
Obviously, I'm asking because I managed to run foul of the rule. I had some rules like:
test.01: ${PROGRAM} ${DRIVER} test.01.tst test.01.out ${DATA.01}
${DRIVER} ${D_FLAGS} $#
where the name test.01 is a phony target, but one of the dependencies is test.01.out. When actively run (not using make -n; that works fine), this gives me lots of errors like:
make[1]: Circular test.01 <- test.01.out dependency dropped.
I also tried dropping the .out suffix with:
.SUFFIXES:
.SUFFIXES: .sh
and that didn't seem to neuter the .out rule like I expected. Is that an expected feature of GNU Make?
I guess I'm going to have to work around this bug feature of GNU Make by changing my suffix to .req or something similar, but it is a nuisance and I'm left puzzled about why the .out rule is part of the standard GNU Make rule set.
I don't know the answer to your questions about the use of this rule. All I can say is that this rule already existed when GNU make was first checked into source control, in Jan 1992. It's not mentioned in any ChangeLog so probably it dates back to the very earliest versions.
The actual rule is defined as a pattern rule, so changing .SUFFIXES won't help. To get rid of it you can use:
%.out : %
(no recipe) which will delete the pattern rule.
I have this implicit rule:
%.so: %.so.5
qnx_ln $< $#
I realized that for another target, I have to make all .so files the prerequisite for that target.
I tried this:
makegen: $(TEAM_ROOT)HMI_FORGF/src/src.pro module_dirs %.so
...
But I got the output
*** No rule to make target '%.so', needed by 'makegen'. Stop.
% prerequisite patterns can only be used in static and implicit pattern rules, where they match the respective % part of the target; when used in a regular rule % is a literal character.
You'll need to specify the dependencies literally, unless there is some correspondence between certain source filenames and the .so filenames that you can leverage, presumably you're already doing either of these to link the .so files in the first place.
As pointed out previously, no you can't do that because this is not how prerequisite patterns work. Maybe you gave the following a thought and rejected it but I suspect you might find the following a close-enough fit:
%.so.target: %.so.5
echo $< >> $(BUILD)/so.targets
SO_TARGETS=$(basename $(shell cat $(BUILD)/so.targets))
makegen: $(TEAM_ROOT)HMI_FORGF/src/src.pro module_dirs $(SO_TARGETS)
Maybe you are looking for a rule to match on every existing *.so file?
makegen: $(TEAM_ROOT)HMI_FORGF/src/src.pro module_dirs $(wildcard *.so)
...
However, if there are patterns which could generate *.so files which have not yet generated those files, they will (obviously) not be matched by the wildcard, which simply examines existing files. If that's what you actually want to accomplish, you'll probably want to enumerate the actual files, one way or another.
I am new to writing makefiles. Recently I have seen pattern rules in makefiles. For example:
%.o: %.cc
# command to compile comes here
After rigourous searching in the net, I found out what the above statement does,
But I came across another statement below.
%: %.o
# Command to link lies here
I do not understand this rule. Can anyone explain the second pattern rule?
The second rule is also a pattern rule, it says how to make a file with no extension from a file with the same name, but .o at the end. So it's a rule to link foo from foo.o, bar from bar.o and so on.