Re: [boost] mkmakefile

Subject: Re: [boost] mkmakefile
From: Ggh (ggh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-04-05 04:58:58

Seth!!
THANK YOU!!!THANK YOU!!!

:)

Greg

Quoting Seth via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:

> On 01-04-18 17:13, Ggh via Boost wrote:
>> wondering...if I'm reinventing the wheel ( again as many do)....I
>> guess there's loads of similar stuff
>
> Similar to what? Shell scripts that write a makefile?
>
> Also, your link was broken. The fixed link leads to incomplete code (
>
> You  don't state the target implementations (just GNU make? what
> versions?), features required, features already supported, etc.
>
> I think what I've seen is trivial. I'm not at all convinced that
> cramming the options all on some command line to be parsed by a ...
> questionable script is better than writing the equivalent makefile (or
> Makefile.am, m4 template or CMakeLists.txt, ... if you intend to
> generate the makefile).
>
> The code is... what I'd call bad code. You should probably have posted
> it for review instead (https://codereview.stackexchange.com/ e.g.).
>
> It fails to use all the conventions in place to make Makefiles
> maintainable. You subvert default variable naming (CC for CXX, really?).
>
> Here's the same program converted to actual C++ - in 306 lines of code
> (instead of the incomplete 560 lines):
> https://gist.github.com/sehe/57693dedda3de679c33848074d61c8e6/e48398e97f42071e61e2d778cdbacb4f9d0b1750
>
> Now note that *LOTS* of things have been fixed with respect to quoting
> of path names, but lots of things still don't work (no way to pass
> compiler/linker flags, static libraries aren't built (because the target
> rule was wrong), static libraries cannot link (because it needs position
> indepent code, but, again, compiler flags cannot be passed), the linker
> is always using `g++` instead of `gcc` even if all source files were
> compiled with the C compiler etc.
>
> To fix things, I cleaned things up **A LOT** MORE:
> https://gist.github.com/sehe/57693dedda3de679c33848074d61c8e6/3f22091fc4f3931ecafd3b51a93f9381ee561e2e
>
> Now the code is 351 lines of code, but actually organized (you could
> split headers and implementations here), it has actually working
> Â Â Â 
> Â Â Â Â  - STATICLIBTARGET and LIBTARGET
> Â Â Â Â  - much simplified rules
> Â Â Â Â  - dependency detection / creation
> Â Â Â Â  - using OBJS instead of hardcoding names and even `*.o` (ugh)
> Â Â Â Â  - separating discover_sourcefiles, generate_makefile, run_make
> Â Â Â Â  - deduceLinker (instead of using g++ to link C programs...)
> Â Â Â Â  - allow for compiler flags
> Â Â Â Â  - don't repeat includes and libraries with each (intermediate) target
>
> A screenshot of interactively bootstrapping the program using itself:
> https://imgur.com/a/AlYRz, using the command line:
>
> ./bootstrap/mymakemaker -hd -t mymakemaker -cxxflags -std=c++1z -tt exe
> -wd bootstrap -mk -cc 'clang++' -i ~/custom/boost -L
> ~/custom/boost/stage/lib/ -l boost_program_options -l stdc++fs
> Reading directory:Â Â Â  "bootstrap"
> Creating makefile:Â Â Â  makefile.mk
> Making...
> ------------------------------------------------------
> "clang++"Â  -I"/home/sehe/custom/boost" -MMDÂ Â Â  -std=c++1z -c test.cpp -o
> "./test.o"
> "clang++"Â  -I"/home/sehe/custom/boost" -MMDÂ Â Â  -std=c++1z "./test.o"Â Â 
> -L"/home/sehe/custom/boost/stage/lib/" -l"boost_program_options"
> -l"stdc++fs" -o "mymakemaker"
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> The resulting generated makefile looks like
> https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/rMhGFxnYHy/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:  
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost