A Tutorial on Portable Makefiles

Re:A Tutorial on Portable Makefiles by rossy on Sunday August 20, 2017 @11:19PM (#15061685)

(2) is not quite correct. The old .d file from the previous compilation is actually all you need to determine whether the .c file needs to be recompiled. It works in all cases. If the .c file is new (or you're doing a clean rebuild of the whole project,) it will always be compiled, because there will be no corresponding .o. If the .c file, or any of the .h files in the old .d gain new header dependencies, they must have been modified, so their timestamps will be newer than the .o file from the last build, hence the .c file will be recompiled and a new up-to-date .d file will be generated (because a new .d file is always generated when the .c file is compiled.)

If (2) is not correct, then (1) is not needed either. The old .d files from the last compilation pass are sufficient to know which files need to be recompiled in the current compilation pass. Make does not need to know the dependencies of the .d files themselves, it just needs to load all the existing .d files at startup.

EDIT: Yep, I'm fairly confident this works :D. I don't know if whoever wrote that manual page knew about -MD, but I think it might be newer than -M, which would explain it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Tutorial on Portable Makefiles by plorkyeran on Sunday August 20, 2017 @11:35PM (#15061737)

The problematic case is with generated header files. Suppose foo.c includes foo.h, where foo.h is generated by a separate command. On a clean build, there's nothing telling Make that it needs to build foo.h before foo.c, so it may not happen (and worse, it may usually happen but sometimes not when doing parallel builds). A separate invocation of `gcc -MM` works for this, as when it generates the dependency information for foo.c it will see that it needs foo.h before you do the actual build.

Personally I've never found it too burdensome to just manually specify dependencies on generated files.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Tutorial on Portable Makefiles by thetic on Sunday August 20, 2017 @11:55PM (#15061805)

Wouldn't the header need to be explicitly listed as a dependency to prompt it's generation anyway?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Tutorial on Portable Makefiles by chubot on Sunday August 20, 2017 @11:33PM (#15061733)

Hm yes I just figured that out the hard way -- <scratching head>.

This feels hacky, but yes it seems to work. I'll think about it a bit more. (I might clone this feature for a build tool -- since the gcc/Clang support is already there, it seems like any serious build tool needs this. Although some have their own #include scanners which is odd.)

Thanks for the information!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Tutorial on Portable Makefiles by rossy on Sunday August 20, 2017 @11:55PM (#15061806)

I guess a simple way of explaining it is that if there are any new header dependencies, one of the files that make already knows about must have been modified to add the #include statement, so make will correctly rebuild the .c file and generate the new .d file, even though it's working on outdated dependency information.

Though, I guess I wasn't quite correct either. See plorkyeran's sibling comment re: generated header files.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Tutorial on Portable Makefiles by int_19h on Monday August 21, 2017 @12:20AM (#15061893)

> Although some have their own #include scanners which is odd.

I once worked in a place that had its own #include scanner (partially because it used so many different compilers and other tools... suffice it to say that Watcom C++ was in the mix). To make it work, you had to install a custom filesystem driver that intercepted disk reads during compilation and logged them. A rather... bruteforce approach. But it had the advantage of working with everything.

[ Parent | on HN ]