Re: [RFC] add regenerate Makefile target

Christophe Lyon via Gdb <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.gdb.devel,gmane.comp.gnu.binutils,gmane.comp.gcc.devel
Message-ID <CAPS5khbaV9hhSKo4s2cn1VUvn0q4gXUDm7bybQLAPrNSr6bUsA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi!


On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 at 15:19, Christophe Lyon
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 at 15:32, Christophe Lyon
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 at 16:34, Simon Marchi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 3/18/24 13:25, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > > > Well the rule to regenerate Makefile.in (eg in in opcodes/) is a bit
> > > > more complex
> > > > than just calling automake. IIUC it calls automake --foreign it any of
> > > > *.m4 file from $(am__configure_deps) that is newer than Makefile.in
> > > > (with an early exit in the loop), does nothing if Makefile.am or
> > > > doc/local.mk are newer than Makefile.in, and then calls 'automake
> > > > --foreign Makefile'
> > >
> > > The rules looks complex because they've been generated by automake, this
> > > Makefile.in is not written by hand.  And I guess automake has put
> > > `--foreign` there because foreign is used in Makefile.am:
> > Yes, I know :-)
> >
> > >
> > >   AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS = foreign no-dist
> > >
> > > But a simple call so `automake -f` (or `autoreconf -f`) just works, as
> > > automake picks up the foreign option from AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS, so a human
> > > or an external script who wants to regenerate things would probably just
> > > use that.
> >
> > Indeed. I guess my concern is: if some change happens to
> > Makefile.am/Makefile.in which would imply that 'autoreconf -f' would
> > not work, how do we make sure autoregen.py (or whatever script) is
> > updated accordingly? Or maybe whatever change is made to
> > Makefile.am/Makefile.in, 'autoreconf -f' is supposed to handle it
> > without additional flag?
> >
> I think I've just noticed a variant of this: if you look at
> opcodes/Makefile.in, you can see that aclocal.m4 depends on
> configure.ac (among others). So if configure.ac is updated, a
> maintainer-mode rule in Makefile.in will call aclocal and regenerate
> aclocal.m4.
>
> However, autoregen.py calls aclocal only if configure.ac contains
> AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIRS, which is not the case here.
>
> That's probably a bug in opcode/configure.ac, but still the current
> Makefile.in machinery would update aclocal.m4 as needed when
> autoregen.py will not.
>
> I haven't audited all configure.ac but there are probably other
> occurrences of this.
>

As another follow-up on this topic, while working on a tentative GCC
patch to implement this, I realized an obvious issue: all target
libraries configure steps depend on 'all-gcc' (of course, we need a
compiler to build the libs...)

So they idea of doing roughly:
- configure --enable-maintainer-mode
- make regenerate -j1  (to avoid current race conditions in maintainer-mode)
- make all -jXXX

means that the regenerate step will trigger the configure step for all
host and target subdirs as needed, and configuring target-libs
requires building 'all-gcc', which would happen at -j1 !

sigh :-)

Looks like we should handle binutils, gdb, and gcc differently for the
sake of precommit CI.

Thanks,

Christophe



> Christophe
>
> > >
> > > > The bot I want to put in place would regenerate things as they are
> > > > supposed to be, then build and run the testsuite to make sure that
> > > > what is supposed to be committed would work (if the committer
> > > > regenerates everything correctly)
> > >
> > > For your job, would it be fine to just force-regenerate everything and
> > > ignore timestamps (just like the buildbot's autoregen job wants to do)?
> > > It would waste a few cycles, but it would be much simpler.
> > >
> > Yes, that would achieve the purpose: be able to handle as many patches
> > as possible in precommit-CI.
> > And as described earlier, for binutils this currently means:
> > autoregen
> > confgure --enable-maintainer-mode
> > make all (with a low -j value otherwise we have random build failures)
> > and my proposal to workaround the problem with -j is to do
> > make all-bfd all-libiberty regenerate -j1
> > make all -j XXX
> >
> > Another possibility would be a policy change in how patches are
> > submitted, to require that they contain all the autogenerated files.
> >
> >
> > > Simon
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.