I am relatively new to programming on Linux.
I understand that Makefiles are used to ease the compiling process when compiling several files.
Rather than writing "g++ main.cpp x.cpp y.cpp -o executable" everytime you need to compile and run your program, you can throw it into a Makefile and run make in that directory.
I am trying to get a RPi and Arduino to communicate with each other using the nRF24L01 radios using tmrh20's library here. I have been successful using tmrh20's Makefile to build the the executable needed (on the RPi). I would like to, however, use tmrh20's library to build my own executables.
I have watched several tutorial videos on Makefiles but still cannot seem to piece together what is happening in tmrh20's.
The Makefile (1) in question is here. I believe it is somehow referencing a second Makefile (2) (for filenames?) here. (Why is this necessary?)
If it helps anyone understand (it took me a while) I had to build using SPIDEV (the instructions here) the Makefile (3) in the RF24 directory which produced several object files which I think are relevant to Makefile (1)&(2).
How do I find out what files I need to make my own Makefile, from tmrh20's Makefile (if that makes sense?) He seems to use variables in his Makefile that are not defined? Or are perhaps defined elsewhere?
Apologies for my poor explanation.
The canonical sequence is not just make and make install. There is an initial ./configure step (such a file is here) that sets up everything and generates several files used in the make steps.
You only need to run this configure script successfully only once, unless you want to change build parameters. I say "successfully" because the first execution will usually complain that you are missing libraries or header files. But ince ./configure runs without errors, make and make install should run without errors.
PS: I didn't try to compile it, but since the project has a rather comprehensive configure it is likely complete and you shouldn't need to tweak makefiles if your follow the usual procedure.
The reason for splitting the Makefiles in the way you've mentioned and linked to here is to separate the definition of the variables from the implementation. This way you could have multiple base Makefiles that define their PROGRAM variable differently, but all do the same thing based on the value of that variable.
In my own personal opinion, I see some value here - but there very many ways to skin this proverbial cat.
Having learned GNU Make the hard way, I can only recommend you do the same. There's a slight steep curve at the beginning, but once you get the main concepts down following other peoples Makefiles gets pretty easy.
Good luck: https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/index.html
Related
I'm trying to update an existing configuration we have we are cross compiling for a number of targets - the question specifically here is about Android. More specifically we are building code using cmake and the hunter package manager. However we are building ICU using a link that uses autoconf/configure, called from cmake. Not sure that is specifically important except that we have less control on the use of configure than is generally the case.
OK: we have a version that builds against an old NDK but I am updating and have hit a problem identified by https://android.googlesource.com/platform/ndk/+/master/docs/UnifiedHeaders.md: with NDK16 and later, the value of the sysroot parameter needs to vary between compilation and linkage. As it stands the configure script tries to build a small program conftest.c - the program fails to link. Manually I can compile the code in two stages using -c and then linking the subsequent .o, but that is not what configure is trying to do.
Now the reality is that when I build this code, I don't actually need to link the code - I am generating a library which is used elsewhere. However that is not currently the way that configure sees it.
I may look to redo the configuration script to just check that the code can be compiled when cross compiling. However I am curious to know if anybody has managed to handle this sort of thing by keeping the existing config files and just changing the parameters by which the scripts are called.
When r19 releases to stable this problem will go away on its own (https://github.com/android-ndk/ndk/issues/780), but since that's still in beta it's not a good solution just yet.
Prior to r19 (this isn't really unique to r16+, this has always been the case and it was just asymptomatic previously), autoconf builds should be done using a standalone toolchain.
You however should not use a standalone toolchain for CMake, so odds are something about your configuration will need to change until r19 is released. Depending on the effort involved, it may make sense to keep to r15 until r19 is available.
Perhaps it's just better to describe my problem.
I'm developing a Haskell library. But part of the library is written in C, and another part actually in raw LLVM. To actually get GHC to spit out the code I want I have to follow this process:
Run ghc -emit-llvm on both the code that uses the Haskell module and the "Main" module.
Run clang -emit-llvm on the C file
Now I've got three .ll files from above. I add the part of the library I've handwritten in raw LLVM and llvm-link these into one .ll file.
I then run LLVM's opt on the linked file.
Lastly, I feed the LLVM bitcode fileback into GHC (which pleasantly accepts it) and produces an executable.
This process (with appropriate optimisation settings of course) seems to be the only way I can inline code from C, removing the function call overhead. Since many of these C functions are very small this is significant.
Anyway, I want to be able to distribute the library and for users to be able to use it as painlessly as possible, whilst still gaining the optimisations from the process above. I understand it's going to be a bit more of a pain than an ordinary library (for example, you're forced to compile via LLVM) but as painlessly as possible is what I'm looking for advice for.
Any guidance will be appreciated, I don't expect a step by step answer because I think it will be complex, but just some ideas would be helpful.
I'm having to build gnu make from source for reasons too complicated to explain here.
I noticed to build it I require the make command itself, in the traditional fashion:
./configure
make install
So what if I didn't have the make binary already? Where did the first ever make binary come from?
From the same place the first gcc binary came from.
The first make was created probably using a shell script to do the build. After that, make would "make" itself.
It's a notable achievement in systems development when the platform becomes "self-hosting". That is the platform can build itself.
Things like "make make" and "gcc gcc.c".
Many language writers will create their language in another language (say, C) and when they have moved it far enough along, they will use that original bootstrap compiler to write a new compiler in the original language. Finally, they discard the original.
Back in the day, a friend was working on a debugger for OS/2, notable for being a multi-tasking operating system at the time. And he would regale about the times when they would be debugging the debugger, and find a bug. So, they would debug the debugger debugging the debugger. It's a novel concept and goes to the heart of computing and abstraction.
Inevitably, it all boils back to when someone keyed in something through a hardwire key pad or some other switches to get an initial program loaded. Then they leveraged that program to do other work, and it all just grows from there.
Stuart Feldman, then at AT&T, wrote the source code for make around the time of 7th Edition UNIX™, and used manual compilation (or maybe a shell script) until make was working well enough to be used to build itself. You can find the UNIX Programmer's Manual for 7th Edition online, and in particular, the original paper describing the original version of make, dated August 1978.
make is just one convenience tool. It is still possible to invoke cc, ld, etc. manually or via other scripting tools.
If you're building GNU make, have a look at build.sh in the source tree after running configure:
# Shell script to build GNU Make in the absence of any `make' program.
# build.sh. Generated from build.sh.in by configure.
Compiling C programs is not the only way to produce an executable file. The first make executable (or more notably the C compiler itself) could for example be an assembly program, or it could be hand coded in machine code. It could also be cross compiled on a completely different system.
The essence of make is that it is a simplified way of running some commands.
To make the first make, the author had to manually act as make, and run gcc or whatever toolset was available, rather than having it run automatically.
Mostly for my amusement, I created a makefile in my $HOME/bin directory called rebuild.mk, and made it executable, and the first lines of the file read:
#!/bin/make -f
#
# Comments on what the makefile is for
...
all: ${SCRIPTS} ${LINKS} ...
...
I can now type:
rebuild.mk
and this causes make to execute.
What are the reasons for not exploiting this on a permanent basis, other than this:
The makefile is tied to a single directory, so it really isn't appropriate in my main bin directory.
Has anyone ever seen the trick exploited before?
Collecting some comments, and providing a bit more background information.
Norman Ramsey reports that this technique is used in Debian; that is interesting to know. Thank you.
I agree that typing 'make' is more idiomatic.
However, the scenario (previously unstated) is that my $HOME/bin directory already has a cross-platform main makefile in it that is the primary maintenance tool for the 500+ commands in the directory.
However, on one particular machine (only), I wanted to add a makefile for building a special set of tools. So, those tools get a special makefile, which I called rebuild.mk for this question (it has another name on my machine).
I do get to save typing 'make -f rebuild.mk' by using 'rebuild.mk' instead.
Fixing the position of the make utility is problematic across platforms.
The #!/usr/bin/env make -f technique is likely to work, though I believe the official rules of engagement are that the line must be less than 32 characters and may only have one argument to the command.
#dF comments that the technique might prevent you passing arguments to make. That is not a problem on my Solaris machine, at any rate. The three different versions of 'make' I tested (Sun, GNU, mine) all got the extra command line arguments that I type, including options ('-u' on my home-brew version) and targets 'someprogram' and macros CC='cc' WFLAGS=-v (to use a different compiler and cancel the GCC warning flags which the Sun compiler does not understand).
I would not advocate this as a general technique.
As stated, it was mostly for my amusement. I may keep it for this particular job; it is most unlikely that I'd use it in distributed work. And if I did, I'd supply and apply a 'fixin' script to fix the pathname of the interpreter; indeed, I did that already on my machine. That script is a relic from the first edition of the Camel book ('Programming Perl' by Larry Wall).
One problem with this for generally distributable Makefiles is that the location of make is not always consistent across platforms. Also, some systems might require an alternate name like gmake.
Of course one can always run the appropriate command manually, but this sort of defeats the whole purpose of making the Makefile executable.
I've seen this trick used before in the debian/rules file that is part of every Debian package.
To address the problem of make not always being in the same place (on my system for example it's in /usr/bin), you could use
#!/usr/bin/env make -f
if you're on a UNIX-like system.
Another problem is that by using the Makefile this way you cannot override variables, by doing, for example make CFLAGS=....
"make" is shorter than "./Makefile", so I don't think you're buying anything.
The reason I would not do this is that typing "make" is more idiomatic to building Makefile based projects. Imagine if every project you built you had to search for the differently named makefile someone created instead of just typing "make && make install".
You could use a shell alias for this too.
We can look at this another way: is it a good idea to design a language whose interpreter looks for a fixed filename if you don't give it one? What if python looked for Pythonfile in the absence of a script name? ;)
You don't need such a mechanism in order to have a convention based around a known name. Example: Autoconf's ./configure script.
I have a plugin project I've been developing for a few years where the plugin works with numerous combinations of [primary application version, 3rd party library version, 32-bit vs. 64-bit]. Is there a (clean) way to use autotools to create a single makefile that builds all versions of the plugin.
As far as I can tell from skimming through the autotools documentation, the closest approximation to what I'd like is to have N independent copies of the project, each with its own makefile. This seems a little suboptimal for testing and development as (a) I'd need to continually propagate code changes across all the different copies and (b) there is a lot of wasted space in duplicating the project so many times. Is there a better way?
EDIT:
I've been rolling my own solution for a while where I have a fancy makefile and some perl scripts to hunt down various 3rd party library versions, etc. As such, I'm open to other non-autotools solutions. For other build tools, I'd want them to be very easy for end users to install. The tools also need to be smart enough to hunt down various 3rd party libraries and headers without a huge amount of trouble. I'm mostly looking for a linux solution, but one that also works for Windows and/or the Mac would be a bonus.
If your question is:
Can I use the autotools on some machine A to create a single universal makefile that will work on all other machines?
then the answer is "No". The autotools do not even make a pretense at trying to do that. They are designed to contain portable code that will determine how to create a workable makefile on the target machine.
If your question is:
Can I use the autotools to configure software that needs to run on different machines, with different versions of the primary software which my plugin works with, plus various 3rd party libraries, not to mention 32-bit vs 64-bit issues?
then the answer is "Yes". The autotools are designed to be able to do that. Further, they work on Unix, Linux, MacOS X, BSD.
I have a program, SQLCMD (which pre-dates the Microsoft program of the same name by a decade and more), which works with the IBM Informix databases. It detects the version of the client software (called IBM Informix ESQL/C, part of the IBM Informix ClientSDK or CSDK) is installed, and whether it is 32-bit or 64-bit. It also detects which version of the software is installed, and adapts its functionality to what is available in the supporting product. It supports versions that have been released over a period of about 17 years. It is autoconfigured -- I had to write some autoconf macros for the Informix functionality, and for a couple of other gizmos (high resolution timing, presence of /dev/stdin etc). But it is doable.
On the other hand, I don't try and release a single makefile that fits all customer machines and environments; there are just too many possibilities for that to be sensible. But autotools takes care of the details for me (and my users). All they do is:
./configure
That's easier than working out how to edit the makefile. (Oh, for the first 10 years, the program was configured by hand. It was hard for people to do, even though I had pretty good defaults set up. That was why I moved to auto-configuration: it makes it much easier for people to install.)
Mr Fooz commented:
I want something in between. Customers will use multiple versions and bitnesses of the same base application on the same machine in my case. I'm not worried about cross-compilation such as building Windows binaries on Linux.
Do you need a separate build of your plugin for the 32-bit and 64-bit versions? (I'd assume yes - but you could surprise me.) So you need to provide a mechanism for the user to say
./configure --use-tppkg=/opt/tp/pkg32-1.0.3
(where tppkg is a code for your third-party package, and the location is specifiable by the user.) However, keep in mind usability: the fewer such options the user has to provide, the better; against that, do not hard code things that should be optional, such as install locations. By all means look in default locations - that's good. And default to the bittiness of the stuff you find. Maybe if you find both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, then you should build both -- that would require careful construction, though. You can always echo "Checking for TP-Package ..." and indicate what you found and where you found it. Then the installer can change the options. Make sure you document in './configure --help' what the options are; this is standard autotools practice.
Do not do anything interactive though; the configure script should run, reporting what it does. The Perl Configure script (note the capital letter - it is a wholly separate automatic configuration system) is one of the few intensively interactive configuration systems left (and that is probably mainly because of its heritage; if starting anew, it would most likely be non-interactive). Such systems are more of a nuisance to configure than the non-interactive ones.
Cross-compilation is tough. I've never needed to do it, thank goodness.
Mr Fooz also commented:
Thanks for the extra comments. I'm looking for something like:
./configure --use-tppkg=/opt/tp/pkg32-1.0.3 --use-tppkg=/opt/tp/pkg64-1.1.2
where it would create both the 32-bit and 64-bit targets in one makefile for the current platform.
Well, I'm sure it could be done; I'm not so sure that it is worth doing by comparison with two separate configuration runs with a complete rebuild in between. You'd probably want to use:
./configure --use-tppkg32=/opt/tp/pkg32-1.0.3 --use-tppkg64=/opt/tp/pkg64-1.1.2
This indicates the two separate directories. You'd have to decide how you're going to do the build, but presumably you'd have two sub-directories, such as 'obj-32' and 'obj-64' for storing the separate sets of object files. You'd also arrange your makefile along the lines of:
FLAGS_32 = ...32-bit compiler options...
FLAGS_64 = ...64-bit compiler options...
TPPKG32DIR = #TPPKG32DIR#
TPPKG64DIR = #TPPKG64DIR#
OBJ32DIR = obj-32
OBJ64DIR = obj-64
BUILD_32 = #BUILD_32#
BUILD_64 = #BUILD_64#
TPPKGDIR =
OBJDIR =
FLAGS =
all: ${BUILD_32} ${BUILD_64}
build_32:
${MAKE} TPPKGDIR=${TPPKG32DIR} OBJDIR=${OBJ32DIR} FLAGS=${FLAGS_32} build
build_64:
${MAKE} TPPKGDIR=${TPPKG64DIR} OBJDIR=${OBJ64DIR} FLAGS=${FLAGS_64} build
build: ${OBJDIR}/plugin.so
This assumes that the plugin would be a shared object. The idea here is that the autotool would detect the 32-bit or 64-bit installs for the Third Party Package, and then make substitutions. The BUILD_32 macro would be set to build_32 if the 32-bit package was required and left empty otherwise; the BUILD_64 macro would be handled similarly.
When the user runs 'make all', it will build the build_32 target first and the build_64 target next. To build the build_32 target, it will re-run make and configure the flags for a 32-bit build. Similarly, to build the build_64 target, it will re-run make and configure the flags for a 64-bit build. It is important that all the flags affected by 32-bit vs 64-bit builds are set on the recursive invocation of make, and that the rules for building objects and libraries are written carefully - for example, the rule for compiling source to object must be careful to place the object file in the correct object directory - using GCC, for example, you would specify (in a .c.o rule):
${CC} ${CFLAGS} -o ${OBJDIR}/$*.o -c $*.c
The macro CFLAGS would include the ${FLAGS} value which deals with the bits (for example, FLAGS_32 = -m32 and FLAGS_64 = -m64, and so when building the 32-bit version,FLAGS = -m32would be included in theCFLAGS` macro.
The residual issues in the autotools is working out how to determine the 32-bit and 64-bit flags. If the worst comes to the worst, you'll have to write macros for that yourself. However, I'd expect (without having researched it) that you can do it using standard facilities from the autotools suite.
Unless you create yourself a carefully (even ruthlessly) symmetric makefile, it won't work reliably.
As far as I know, you can't do that. However, are you stuck with autotools? Are neither CMake nor SCons an option?
We tried it and it doesn't work! So we use now SCons.
Some articles to this topic: 1 and 2
Edit:
Some small example why I love SCons:
env.ParseConfig('pkg-config --cflags --libs glib-2.0')
With this line of code you add GLib to the compile environment (env). And don't forget the User Guide which just great to learn SCons (you really don't have to know Python!). For the end user you could try SCons with PyInstaller or something like that.
And in comparison to make, you use Python, so a complete programming language! With this in mind you can do just everything (more or less).
Have you ever considered to use a single project with multiple build directories?
if your automake project is implemented in a proper way (i.e.: NOT like gcc)
the following is possible:
mkdir build1 build2 build3
cd build1
../configure $(YOUR_OPTIONS)
cd build2
../configure $(YOUR_OPTIONS2)
[...]
you are able to pass different configuration parameters like include directories and compilers (cross compilers i.e.).
you can then even run this in a single make call by running
make -C build1 -C build2 -C build3