(automake-1.16.info)Multiple Outputs
27.9 Handling Tools that Produce Many Outputs
=============================================
This section describes a ‘make’ idiom that can be used when a tool
produces multiple output files. It is not specific to Automake and can
be used in ordinary ‘Makefile’s.
Suppose we have a program called ‘foo’ that will read one file called
‘data.foo’ and produce two files named ‘data.c’ and ‘data.h’. We want
to write a ‘Makefile’ rule that captures this one-to-two dependency.
The naive rule is incorrect:
# This is incorrect.
data.c data.h: data.foo
foo data.foo
What the above rule really says is that ‘data.c’ and ‘data.h’ each
depend on ‘data.foo’, and can each be built by running ‘foo data.foo’.
In other words it is equivalent to:
# We do not want this.
data.c: data.foo
foo data.foo
data.h: data.foo
foo data.foo
which means that ‘foo’ can be run twice. Usually it will not be run
twice, because ‘make’ implementations are smart enough to check for the
existence of the second file after the first one has been built; they
will therefore detect that it already exists. However there are a few
situations where it can run twice anyway:
• The most worrying case is when running a parallel ‘make’. If
‘data.c’ and ‘data.h’ are built in parallel, two ‘foo data.foo’
commands will run concurrently. This is harmful.
• Another case is when the dependency (here ‘data.foo’) is (or
depends upon) a phony target.
A solution that works with parallel ‘make’ but not with phony
dependencies is the following:
data.c data.h: data.foo
foo data.foo
data.h: data.c
The above rules are equivalent to
data.c: data.foo
foo data.foo
data.h: data.foo data.c
foo data.foo
therefore a parallel ‘make’ will have to serialize the builds of
‘data.c’ and ‘data.h’, and will detect that the second is no longer
needed once the first is over.
Using this pattern is probably enough for most cases. However it
does not scale easily to more output files (in this scheme all output
files must be totally ordered by the dependency relation), so we will
explore a more complicated solution.
Another idea is to write the following:
# There is still a problem with this one.
data.c: data.foo
foo data.foo
data.h: data.c
The idea is that ‘foo data.foo’ is run only when ‘data.c’ needs to be
updated, but we further state that ‘data.h’ depends upon ‘data.c’. That
way, if ‘data.h’ is required and ‘data.foo’ is out of date, the
dependency on ‘data.c’ will trigger the build.
This is almost perfect, but suppose we have built ‘data.h’ and
‘data.c’, and then we erase ‘data.h’. Then, running ‘make data.h’ will
not rebuild ‘data.h’. The above rules just state that ‘data.c’ must be
up-to-date with respect to ‘data.foo’, and this is already the case.
What we need is a rule that forces a rebuild when ‘data.h’ is
missing. Here it is:
data.c: data.foo
foo data.foo
data.h: data.c
## Recover from the removal of $@
@if test -f $@; then :; else \
rm -f data.c; \
$(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) data.c; \
fi
The above scheme can be extended to handle more outputs and more
inputs. One of the outputs is selected to serve as a witness to the
successful completion of the command, it depends upon all inputs, and
all other outputs depend upon it. For instance, if ‘foo’ should
additionally read ‘data.bar’ and also produce ‘data.w’ and ‘data.x’, we
would write:
data.c: data.foo data.bar
foo data.foo data.bar
data.h data.w data.x: data.c
## Recover from the removal of $@
@if test -f $@; then :; else \
rm -f data.c; \
$(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) data.c; \
fi
However there are now three minor problems in this setup. One is
related to the timestamp ordering of ‘data.h’, ‘data.w’, ‘data.x’, and
‘data.c’. Another one is a race condition if a parallel ‘make’ attempts
to run multiple instances of the recover block at once. Finally, the
recursive rule breaks ‘make -n’ when run with GNU ‘make’ (as well as
some other ‘make’ implementations), as it may remove ‘data.h’ even when
it should not (Note: How the ‘MAKE’ Variable Works.
).
Let us deal with the first problem. ‘foo’ outputs four files, but we
do not know in which order these files are created. Suppose that
‘data.h’ is created before ‘data.c’. Then we have a weird situation.
The next time ‘make’ is run, ‘data.h’ will appear older than ‘data.c’,
the second rule will be triggered, a shell will be started to execute
the ‘if...fi’ command, but actually it will just execute the ‘then’
branch, that is: nothing. In other words, because the witness we
selected is not the first file created by ‘foo’, ‘make’ will start a
shell to do nothing each time it is run.
A simple riposte is to fix the timestamps when this happens.
data.c: data.foo data.bar
foo data.foo data.bar
data.h data.w data.x: data.c
@if test -f $@; then \
touch $@; \
else \
## Recover from the removal of $@
rm -f data.c; \
$(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) data.c; \
fi
Another solution is to use a different and dedicated file as witness,
rather than using any of ‘foo’’s outputs.
data.stamp: data.foo data.bar
@rm -f data.tmp
@touch data.tmp
foo data.foo data.bar
@mv -f data.tmp $@
data.c data.h data.w data.x: data.stamp
## Recover from the removal of $@
@if test -f $@; then :; else \
rm -f data.stamp; \
$(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) data.stamp; \
fi
‘data.tmp’ is created before ‘foo’ is run, so it has a timestamp
older than output files output by ‘foo’. It is then renamed to
‘data.stamp’ after ‘foo’ has run, because we do not want to update
‘data.stamp’ if ‘foo’ fails.
This solution still suffers from the second problem: the race
condition in the recover rule. If, after a successful build, a user
erases ‘data.c’ and ‘data.h’, and runs ‘make -j’, then ‘make’ may start
both recover rules in parallel. If the two instances of the rule
execute ‘$(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) data.stamp’ concurrently the build is
likely to fail (for instance, the two rules will create ‘data.tmp’, but
only one can rename it).
Admittedly, such a weird situation does not arise during ordinary
builds. It occurs only when the build tree is mutilated. Here ‘data.c’
and ‘data.h’ have been explicitly removed without also removing
‘data.stamp’ and the other output files. ‘make clean; make’ will always
recover from these situations even with parallel makes, so you may
decide that the recover rule is solely to help non-parallel make users
and leave things as-is. Fixing this requires some locking mechanism to
ensure only one instance of the recover rule rebuilds ‘data.stamp’. One
could imagine something along the following lines.
data.c data.h data.w data.x: data.stamp
## Recover from the removal of $@
@if test -f $@; then :; else \
trap 'rm -rf data.lock data.stamp' 1 2 13 15; \
## mkdir is a portable test-and-set
if mkdir data.lock 2>/dev/null; then \
## This code is being executed by the first process.
rm -f data.stamp; \
$(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) data.stamp; \
result=$$?; rm -rf data.lock; exit $$result; \
else \
## This code is being executed by the follower processes.
## Wait until the first process is done.
while test -d data.lock; do sleep 1; done; \
## Succeed if and only if the first process succeeded.
test -f data.stamp; \
fi; \
fi
Using a dedicated witness, like ‘data.stamp’, is very handy when the
list of output files is not known beforehand. As an illustration,
consider the following rules to compile many ‘*.el’ files into ‘*.elc’
files in a single command. It does not matter how ‘ELFILES’ is defined
(as long as it is not empty: empty targets are not accepted by POSIX).
ELFILES = one.el two.el three.el ...
ELCFILES = $(ELFILES:=c)
elc-stamp: $(ELFILES)
@rm -f elc-temp
@touch elc-temp
$(elisp_comp) $(ELFILES)
@mv -f elc-temp $@
$(ELCFILES): elc-stamp
@if test -f $@; then :; else \
## Recover from the removal of $@
trap 'rm -rf elc-lock elc-stamp' 1 2 13 15; \
if mkdir elc-lock 2>/dev/null; then \
## This code is being executed by the first process.
rm -f elc-stamp; \
$(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) elc-stamp; \
rmdir elc-lock; \
else \
## This code is being executed by the follower processes.
## Wait until the first process is done.
while test -d elc-lock; do sleep 1; done; \
## Succeed if and only if the first process succeeded.
test -f elc-stamp; exit $$?; \
fi; \
fi
These solutions all still suffer from the third problem, namely that
they break the promise that ‘make -n’ should not cause any actual
changes to the tree. For those solutions that do not create lock files,
it is possible to split the recover rules into two separate recipe
commands, one of which does all work but the recursion, and the other
invokes the recursive ‘$(MAKE)’. The solutions involving locking could
act upon the contents of the ‘MAKEFLAGS’ variable, but parsing that
portably is not easy (Note: (autoconf)The Make Macro MAKEFLAGS). Here
is an example:
ELFILES = one.el two.el three.el ...
ELCFILES = $(ELFILES:=c)
elc-stamp: $(ELFILES)
@rm -f elc-temp
@touch elc-temp
$(elisp_comp) $(ELFILES)
@mv -f elc-temp $@
$(ELCFILES): elc-stamp
## Recover from the removal of $@
@dry=; for f in x $$MAKEFLAGS; do \
case $$f in \
*=*|--*);; \
*n*) dry=:;; \
esac; \
done; \
if test -f $@; then :; else \
$$dry trap 'rm -rf elc-lock elc-stamp' 1 2 13 15; \
if $$dry mkdir elc-lock 2>/dev/null; then \
## This code is being executed by the first process.
$$dry rm -f elc-stamp; \
$(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) elc-stamp; \
$$dry rmdir elc-lock; \
else \
## This code is being executed by the follower processes.
## Wait until the first process is done.
while test -d elc-lock && test -z "$$dry"; do \
sleep 1; \
done; \
## Succeed if and only if the first process succeeded.
$$dry test -f elc-stamp; exit $$?; \
fi; \
fi
For completeness it should be noted that GNU ‘make’ is able to
express rules with multiple output files using pattern rules (Note:
Pattern Rule Examples.). We do not discuss
pattern rules here because they are not portable, but they can be
convenient in packages that assume GNU ‘make’.
automatically generated by info2www version 1.2.2.9