I am using find_package to find Qt and adding "C:\Qt\5.15.0\mingw81_64\lib\cmake" to my CMAKE_PREFIX_PATH environment variable and it has worked fine when just using 64-bit up until now. However, I want the ability to switch between 32-bit and 64-bit builds. I therefore also added the equivalent above path for 32-bit, however this resulted in linking errors (presumably CMake wasn't sure which one to pick and picked the wrong one for one of the configurations).
What is the conventional way to fix this situation? At the moment I'm using a suffix path and searching in that dependent on the compiler architecture, however ideally I'd like to leave that stuff out of the CMake project itself and simply require users of the project to add whatever Qt location themselves, while still being able to have "more than one" Qt location.
Is this solvable? Or is it malpractice to have two Qt paths in your CMAKE_PREFIX_PATH variable?
What is the conventional way to fix this situation?
Only add to your CMAKE_PREFIX_PATH the Qt path corresponding to the architecture you want.
[...] however ideally I'd like to leave that stuff out of the CMake project itself and simply require users of the project to add whatever Qt location themselves, while still being able to have "more than one" Qt location.
You may request the users to pass the Qt path as a parameter (when calling CMake through the command line)
cmake -DQT_PATH={PATH TO QT} ...
Or read an environment variable (which the user would have to set)
if(DEFINED ENV{QT_ENVIRON})
set(QT_PATH $ENV{QT_ENVIRON})
else()
set(QT_PATH ...)
endif()
There is a issue that is present with some very specific aspect of applications I build using a Qt library provided in repositories of the system I'm using; this issue isn't present with the same numerical build of Qt that I built myself on this exact system.
I would like to query all information about build environment of Qt, it's configuration flags, etc., anything that could help me determine the difference between two build of Qt library.
I've learned about config.summary file, that is present in mine qtbase sources, but there isn't a counterpart anywhere in the system for pre-built version (I have, besides headers, installed a sources and debug information for the qt library packages).
I also tried looking for some header files that could specify, for example, what features were enabled at the build time, but could't locate anything like that (mostly because I don't know the name or some example contents of such file so that I could search for it or grep it), so if there is indeed such file, please point me to it.
I think the best reply is to quote this answer from Qt mailing list
Unfortunately it isn't that easy to figure out but the data is
available; you just need to know from where to search it :D
Configure options can be found from (qtbase) build log, from qt5.git
integration. E.g for 5.6.3
here:https://testresults.qt.io/coin/integration/qt/qt5/tasks/1505476672
and for 5.9.5 here:
https://testresults.qt.io/coin/integration/qt/qt5/tasks/1523412986
And SW details here: https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_5.6_Tools_and_Versions &
https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_5.9_Tools_and_Versions
You can find the latest builds at https://testresults.qt.io/coin/?project=qt%2Fqt5
If you look inside the "Build" section you have all the system configurations Qt is built for (column "Target") and for each configuration the parameters (column "Configure Arguments").
Why does every source package that uses a makefile come with a ./configure script, what does it do? As far as I can tell, it actually generates the makefile?
Is there anything that can't be done in the makefile?
configure is usually a result of the 'autoconf' system. It can generate headers, makefiles, really anything. 'Usually,' since some are hand-crafted.
The reason for these things is to allow source code to be compiled in disparate environments. There are many variations on Unix / Linux, with slightly different system headers and libraries. configure scripts allow code to auto-adapt.
The configure step is a sort of meta build. It generates the makefile that will work on the specific hardware / distribution you're running. For instance it determines the name of the C or C++ compiler and embeds that in the makefile.
The configure step will also frequently take a set of parameters, the values of which may determine what libraries need to be linked against. For instance if you compile Apache HTTP with SSL enabled it needs to link against more shared libraries than if you don't. Since linking is handled by the makefile, you need an extra step to create a custom makefile (rather than requiring the make command to require dozens or hundreds of options.
Everything can be done from within the makefile but some build systems were implemented otherwise.
I don't personally use configure files for my projects but I admit I mostly export Erlang & Python based projects.
I don't think of the makefile as a script, I think of it as an input to the make utility.
The configure script (as its name suggests) configures the makefile, including as you say resolving dependencies.
If only from the idea of avoiding self-modifying code, the things in the configure script don't really belong in the makefile.
the point is that autoconf autohdr automake form an integrated system the makes cross platform building on unix relatively str8forward. THe docs are really bad and there are lots of horrible gotchas but on the other hand there are a lot of working samples
When I first came across this stuff I thought - "ha I can do that with a nice clean makefile" and proceeded to rework the source that way. Big mistake. Learn to write and edit configure.ac and makefile.am files, you will be happy in the end
To answer your question. Configure is good for
is function foo available on this platform and if so which include and library do I need
letting the builder choose if they want feature wizzbang included in a nice simple consistent way
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
A few years ago, I read the Recursive Make Considered Harmful paper and implemented the idea in my own build process. Recently, I read another article with ideas about how to implement non-recursive make. So I have a few data points that non-recursive make works for at least a few projects.
But I'm curious about the experiences of others. Have you tried non-recursive make? Did it make things better or worse? Was it worth the time?
We use a non-recursive GNU Make system in the company I work for. It's based on Miller's paper and especially the "Implementing non-recursive make" link you gave. We've managed to refine Bergen's code into a system where there's no boiler plate at all in subdirectory makefiles. By and large, it works fine, and is much better than our previous system (a recursive thing done with GNU Automake).
We support all the "major" operating systems out there (commercially): AIX, HP-UX, Linux, OS X, Solaris, Windows, even the AS/400 mainframe. We compile the same code for all of these systems, with the platform dependent parts isolated into libraries.
There's more than two million lines of C code in our tree in about 2000 subdirectories and 20000 files. We seriously considered using SCons, but just couldn't make it work fast enough. On the slower systems, Python would use a couple of dozen seconds just parsing in the SCons files where GNU Make did the same thing in about one second. This was about three years ago, so things may have changed since then. Note that we usually keep the source code on an NFS/CIFS share and build the same code on multiple platforms. This means it's even slower for the build tool to scan the source tree for changes.
Our non-recursive GNU Make system is not without problems. Here are some of biggest hurdles you can expect to run into:
Making it portable, especially to Windows, is a lot of work.
While GNU Make is almost a usable functional programming language, it's not suitable for programming in the large. In particular, there are no namespaces, modules, or anything like that to help you isolate pieces from each other. This can cause problems, although not as much as you might think.
The major wins over our old recursive makefile system are:
It's fast. It takes about two seconds to check the entire tree (2k directories, 20k files) and either decide it's up to date or start compiling. The old recursive thing would take more than a minute to do nothing.
It handles dependencies correctly. Our old system relied on the order subdirectories were built etc. Just like you'd expect from reading Miller's paper, treating the whole tree as a single entity is really the right way to tackle this problem.
It's portable to all of our supported systems, after all the hard work we've poured into it. It's pretty cool.
The abstraction system allows us to write very concise makefiles. A typical subdirectory which defines just a library is just two lines. One line gives the name of the library and the other lists the libraries this one depends on.
Regarding the last item in the above list. We ended up implementing a sort of macro expansion facility within the build system. Subdirectory makefiles list programs, subdirectories, libraries, and other common things in variables like PROGRAMS, SUBDIRS, LIBS. Then each of these are expanded into "real" GNU Make rules. This allows us to avoid much of the namespace problems. For example, in our system it's fine to have multiple source files with the same name, no problem there.
In any case, this ended up being a lot of work. If you can get SCons or similar working for your code, I'd advice you look at that first.
After reading the RMCH paper, I set out with the goal of writing a proper non-recursive Makefile for a small project I was working on at the time. After I finished, I realized that it should be possible to create a generic Makefile "framework" which can be used to very simply and concisely tell make what final targets you would like to build, what kind of targets they are (e.g. libraries or executables) and what source files should be compiled to make them.
After a few iterations I eventually created just that: a single boilerplate Makefile of about 150 lines of GNU Make syntax that never needs any modification -- it just works for any kind of project I care to use it on, and is flexible enough to build multiple targets of varying types with enough granularity to specify exact compile flags for each source file (if I want) and precise linker flags for each executable. For each project, all I need to do is supply it with small, separate Makefiles that contain bits similar to this:
TARGET := foo
TGT_LDLIBS := -lbar
SOURCES := foo.c baz.cpp
SRC_CFLAGS := -std=c99
SRC_CXXFLAGS := -fstrict-aliasing
SRC_INCDIRS := inc /usr/local/include/bar
A project Makefile such as the above would do exactly what you'd expect: build an executable named "foo", compiling foo.c (with CFLAGS=-std=c99) and baz.cpp (with CXXFLAGS=-fstrict-aliasing) and adding "./inc" and "/usr/local/include/bar" to the #include search path, with final linking including the "libbar" library. It would also notice that there is a C++ source file and know to use the C++ linker instead of the C linker. The framework allows me to specify a lot more than what is shown here in this simple example.
The boilerplate Makefile does all the rule building and automatic dependency generation required to build the specified targets. All build-generated files are placed in a separate output directory hierarchy, so they're not intermingled with source files (and this is done without use of VPATH so there's no problem with having multiple source files that have the same name).
I've now (re)used this same Makefile on at least two dozen different projects that I've worked on. Some of the things I like best about this system (aside from how easy it is to create a proper Makefile for any new project) are:
It's fast. It can virtually instantly tell if anything is out-of-date.
100% reliable dependencies. There is zero chance that parallel builds will mysteriously break, and it always builds exactly the minimum required to bring everything back up-to-date.
I will never need to rewrite a complete makefile again :D
Finally I'd just mention that, with the problems inherent in recursive make, I don't think it would have been possible for me to pull this off. I'd probably have been doomed to rewriting flawed makefiles over and over again, trying in vain to create one that actually worked properly.
Let me stress one argument of Miller's paper: When you start to manually resolve dependency relationships between different modules and have a hard time to ensure the build order, you are effectively reimplementing the logic the build system was made to solve in the first place. Constructing reliable recursive make build systems is very hard. Real life projects have many interdependent parts whose build order is non-trivial to figure out and thus, this task should be left to the build system. However, it can only resolve that problem if it has global knowledge of the system.
Furthermore, recursive make build-systems are prone to fall apart when building concurrently on multiple processors/cores. While these build systems may seem to work reliably on a single processor, many missing dependencies go undetected until you start to build your project in parallel. I've worked with a recursive make build system which worked on up to four processors, but suddenly crashed on a machine with two quad-cores. Then I was facing another problem: These concurrency issues are next to impossible to debug and I ended up drawing a flow-chart of the whole system to figure out what went wrong.
To come back to your question, I find it hard to think of good reasons why one wants to use recursive make. The runtime performance of non-recursive GNU Make build systems is hard to beat and, quite the contrary, many recursive make systems have serious performance problems (weak parallel build support is again a part of the problem). There is a paper in which I evaluated a specific (recursive) Make build system and compared it to a SCons port. The performance results are not representative because the build system was very non-standard, but in this particular case the SCons port was actually faster.
Bottom line: If you really want to use Make to control your software builds, go for non-recursive Make because it makes your life far easier in the long run. Personally, I would rather use SCons for usability reasons (or Rake - basically any build system using a modern scripting language and which has implicit dependency support).
I made a half-hearted attempt at my previous job at making the build system (based on GNU make) completely non-recursive, but I ran into a number of problems:
The artifacts (i.e. libraries and executables built) had their sources spread out over a number of directories, relying on vpath to find them
Several source files with the same name existed in different directories
Several source files were shared between artifacts, often compiled with different compiler flags
Different artifacts often had different compiler flags, optimization settings, etc.
One feature of GNU make which simplifies non-recursive use is target-specific variable values:
foo: FOO=banana
bar: FOO=orange
This means that when building target "foo", $(FOO) will expand to "banana", but when building target "bar", $(FOO) will expand to "orange".
One limitation of this is that it is not possible to have target-specific VPATH definitions, i.e. there is no way to uniquely define VPATH individually for each target. This was necessary in our case in order to find the correct source files.
The main missing feature of GNU make needed in order to support non-recursiveness is that it lacks namespaces. Target-specific variables can in a limited manner be used to "simulate" namespaces, but what you really would need is to be able to include a Makefile in a sub-directory using a local scope.
EDIT: Another very useful (and often under-used) feature of GNU make in this context is the macro-expansion facilities (see the eval function, for example). This is very useful when you have several targets which have similar rules/goals, but differ in ways which cannot be expressed using regular GNU make syntax.
I agree with the statements in the refered article, but it took me a long time to find a good template which does all this and is still easy to use.
Currenty I'm working on a small research project, where I'm experimenting with continuous integration; automatically unit-test on pc, and then run a system test on a (embedded) target. This is non-trivial in make, and I've searched for a good solution. Finding that make is still a good choice for portable multiplatform builds I finally found a good starting point in http://code.google.com/p/nonrec-make
This was a true relief. Now my makefiles are
very simple to modify (even with limited make knowledge)
fast to compile
completely checking (.h) dependencies with no effort
I will certainly also use it for the next (big) project (assuming C/C++)
I have developed a non-recursive make system for a one medium sized C++ project, which is intended for use on unix-like systems (including macs). The code in this project is all in a directory tree rooted at a src/ directory. I wanted to write a non-recursive system in which it is possible to type "make all" from any subdirectory of the top level src/ directory in order to compile all of the source files in the directory tree rooted at the working directory, as in a recursive make system. Because my solution seems to be slightly different from others I have seen, I'd like to describe it here and see if I get any reactions.
The main elements of my solution were as follows:
1) Each directory in the src/ tree has a file named sources.mk. Each such file defines a makefile variable that lists all of the source files in the tree rooted at the directory. The name of this variable is of the form [directory]_SRCS, in which [directory] represents a canonicalized form of the path from the top level src/ directory to that directory, with backslashes replaced by underscores. For example, the file src/util/param/sources.mk defines a variable named util_param_SRCS that contains a list of all source files in src/util/param and its subdirectories, if any. Each sources.mk file also defines a variable named [directory]_OBJS that contains a list of the the corresponding object file *.o targets. In each directory that contains subdirectories, the sources.mk includes the sources.mk file from each of the subdirectories, and concatenates the [subdirectory]_SRCS variables to create its own [directory]_SRCS variable.
2) All paths are expressed in sources.mk files as absolute paths in which the src/ directory is represented by a variable $(SRC_DIR). For example, in the file src/util/param/sources.mk, the file src/util/param/Componenent.cpp would be listed as $(SRC_DIR)/util/param/Component.cpp. The value of $(SRC_DIR) is not set in any sources.mk file.
3) Each directory also contains a Makefile. Every Makefile includes a global configuration file that sets the value of the variable $(SRC_DIR) to the absolute path to the root src/ directory. I chose to use a symbolic form of absolute paths because this appeared to be the easiest way to create multiple makefiles in multiple directories that would interpret paths for dependencies and targets in the same way, while still allowing one to move the entire source tree if desired, by changing the value of $(SRC_DIR) in one file. This value is set automatically by a simple script that the user is instructed to run when the package is dowloaded or cloned from the git repository, or when the entire source tree is moved.
4) The makefile in each directory includes the sources.mk file for that directory. The "all" target for each such Makefile lists the [directory]_OBJS file for that directory as a dependency, thus requiring compilation of all of the source files in that directory and its subdirectories.
5) The rule for compiling *.cpp files create a dependency file for each source file, with a suffix *.d, as a side-effect of compilation, as described here: http://mad-scientist.net/make/autodep.html. I chose to use the gcc compiler for dependency generation, using the -M option. I use gcc for dependency generation even when using another compiler to compile the source files, because gcc is almost always available on unix-like systems, and because this helps standardize this part of the build system. A different compiler can be used to actually compile the source files.
6) The use of absolute paths for all files in the _OBJS and _SRCS variables required that I write a script to edit the dependency files generated by gcc, which creates files with relative paths. I wrote a python script for this purpose, but another person might have used sed. The paths for dependencies in the resulting dependency files are literal absolute paths. This is fine in this context because the dependency files (unlike the sources.mk files) are generated locally and rather than being distributed as part of the package.
7) The Makefile in each director includes the sources.mk file from the same directory, and contains a line "-include $([directory]_OBJS:.o=.d)" that attempts to include a dependency files for every source file in the directory and its subdirectories, as described in the URL given above.
The main difference between this an other schemes that I have seen that allow "make all" to be invoked from any directory is the use of absolute paths to allow the same paths to be interpreted consistently when Make is invoked from different directories. As long as these paths are expressed using a variable to represent the top level source directory, this does not prevent one from moving the source tree, and is simpler than some alternative methods of achieving the same goal.
Currently, my system for this project always does an "in-place" build: The object file produced by compiling each source file is placed in the same directory as the source file. It would be straightforward to enable out-of place builds by changing the script that edits the gcc dependency files so as to replace the absolute path to the src/ dirctory by a variable $(BUILD_DIR) that represents the build directory in the expression for the object file target in the rule for each object file.
Thus far, I've found this system easy to use and maintain. The required makefile fragments are short and comparatively easy for collaborators to understand.
The project for which I developed this system is written in completely self-contained ANSI C++ with no external dependencies. I think that this sort of homemade non-recursive makefile system is a reasonable option for self-contained, highly portable code. I would consider a more powerful build system such as CMake or gnu autotools, however, for any project that has nontrivial dependencies on external programs or libraries or on non-standard operating system features.
I know of at least one large scale project (ROOT), which advertises using [powerpoint link] the mechanism described in Recursive Make Considered Harmful. The framework exceeds a million lines of code and compiles quite smartly.
And, of course, all the largish projects I work with that do use recursive make are painfully slow to compile. ::sigh::
I written a not very good non-recursive make build system, and since then a very clean modular recursive make build system for a project called Pd-extended. Its basically kind of like a scripting language with a bunch of libraries included. Now I'm also working Android's non-recursive system, so that's the context of my thoughts on this topic.
I can't really say much about the differences in performance between the two, I haven't really paid attention since full builds are really only ever done on the build server. I am usually working either on the core language, or a particular library, so I am only interested in building that subset of the whole package. The recursive make technique has the huge advantage of making the build system be both standalone and integrated into a larger whole. This is important to us since we want to use one build system for all libraries, whether they are integrated in or written by an external author.
I'm now working on building custom version of Android internals, for example an version of Android's SQLite classes that are based on the SQLCipher encrypted sqlite. So I have to write non-recursive Android.mk files that are wrapping all sorts of weird build systems, like sqlite's. I can't figure out how to make the Android.mk execute an arbitrary script, while this would be easy in a traditional recursive make system, from my experience.
How would I go about having a CMake buildsystem, which scans for source files now using AUX_SOURCE_DIRECTORY, scan for header files too in the same directory, preferably using a similar command?
I didn't find an easy way to do this in the documentation yet, so I now have a crappy bash script to post-process my (CodeBlocks) project file...
You can use the file(GLOB ... ) command. For example:
set(dir my_search_dir)
file (GLOB headers "${dir}/*.h")
message("My headers: " ${headers})
This command can also recurse, and list your files relative to a given path. See the "file" command entry in the cmake doc.
The documentation to AUX_SOURCE_DIRECTORY suggests that it was not intended to be used that way, so I'd rather doubt that what you're asking is possible. If you want an authoritative answer, you can reach the CMake developers at cmake#cmake.org (they're actually very nice to deal with).
I'd recommend strongly against using wildcards to specify what is included in the build. The build files should specify the exact contents of the libraries, and not depend on what happens to exist in the directory. It may be cumbersome at first (if you're used to wildcards, or IDE's which works the same way), but when you get used to it, you don't want to have it any other way.