NHacker Next
  • new
  • past
  • show
  • ask
  • show
  • jobs
  • submit
GNU Make Standard Library (gmsl.jgc.org)
t43562 12 hours ago [-]
GNU make now has a load directive which lets you load up functions written in C

    -load my_module.o
Your makefile can contain instructions to build my_module.o and they will be automatically triggered.

For example you can create an equality test that works in an expression (ifeq can't be used as part of an expression obviously). For example

  FILENAME=file.$(if $(equals $(compression_level),0),tar,.tar.bz3)
The C for this function (without includes and export directives):

  char *
  func_equals (const char *func_name, unsigned int argc, char **argv)
  {
      char *result = NULL;

      if (strcmp(argv[0], argv[1]) == 0) {
          result = gmk_alloc(strlen(argv[0]) + 1); /* not handling failure for simplicity */
          strcpy(result, argv[0]);
      }
    
      return result;
  }
This can be done with a macro but it's ugly and verbose. Macros also slow makefile parsing a lot and for a large build like e.g. an operating system this makes a big difference - it's a penalty you pay every time you run "make" even if you only changed 1 file.

There are plenty of things you cannot do with macros too. $(shell) is a getout card but it drastically slows down large makefiles.

Your module has a setup function which gets called when it's loaded and this adds the function into gmake:

  int
  equals_gmk_setup (const gmk_floc *flocp)
  {
      gmk_add_function ("equals", func_equals, 2, 2, GMK_FUNC_DEFAULT);
      return 1;
  }
Things that are hard/slow to do with macros like arithmetic - comparing, adding and so on are even better candidates. A hash function is great for generating intermediate target names that aren't too long for the filesystem.

My favorite one that I've done is embedding a python interpreter into make - this is very convenient as it's MUCH faster than running a process from $(shell) and it keeps state between uses which can be useful.

bandrami 11 hours ago [-]
GNU Make also embeds GNU Guile, a criminally underused feature:

https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Guile-Int...

o11c 10 hours ago [-]
In practice, Guile is usually not compiled in. Whereas I've never seen a version of make without `load` and its supporting infrastructure.
bandrami 7 hours ago [-]
Debian gives you the option, with make and make-guile equivalent packages. IIRC Slackware simply compiles it in (guile already being there) and Fedora/RHEL leave it out entirely.
srik 10 hours ago [-]
TIL thank you!
bandrami 10 hours ago [-]
I sometimes wonder if we would even have autotools or cmake if people just knew about this one simple trick
o11c 10 hours ago [-]
Autotools is designed to solve one very important problem: how do you build the GNU tools in the first place if all you have is some obscure Unix from the 1980s. If you already have gnu make, gnu bash, gnu binutils, gnu coreutils, etc. installed then autotools is pointless.

I have yet to find evidence of cmake solving a problem (or even having design), though I guess `ccmake` would be kind of cool if it weren't full of nonsense?

jcranmer 5 hours ago [-]
One of the other things that autotools does that cmake does (admittedly badly) is provide a "configure" step that gives a much more controllable interface into enabling or disabling features of a program.

The problem with autoconf in particular is that it spends a lot of time trying to paper over the compatibility issues of ancient Unixes, whereas modern portability tends to rely more on a concept of a portable abstract system layer. The latter means that most of the work a configure step needs to do isn't "does your system have $UNIX_SYSTEM_CALL" but instead "what OS is this."

wichert 7 hours ago [-]
Even with all the GNU tools available there are still a lot of system-specific things that you may need to know: supported C version, supported C++ version, how to invoke the compiler, correct compiler flags for warnings / desired C or C++ version / etc, where to install things, how to install them and set the right owner and permissions and many many more. Autotools (and cmake) can figure all of that out for you. If you operate in a monoculture and, for example, only deal with a single Linux distribution on a single architecture most or all of this may not be relevant for you. But if you target a more diverse set of environments it can save you a lot of headaches.
t43562 9 hours ago [-]
I see Autotools as sort of cool if you're porting to a new platform - the tests find out what works and if that's not enough then you have to make some effort to get around it. If you're lucky, however, you put your autotooled code on some completely new OS/hardware and it just builds.

Nowadays the proportion of people who are porting the code is probably much smaller but it's still a way of keeping code working on unix with various compiler, architecture variations.

IMO cmake just includes windows more effectively - for autotools you'd probably be forced down the cygwin route. I find it a bit easier to work with but it's still a nightmare from hell sometimes.

bandrami 8 hours ago [-]
Though there's also gnulib, which as part of the autotools process simply replaces system functions with their own stubs. It was a great idea, briefly, and then it became a fiasco.
t43562 9 hours ago [-]
Make's BIG problem (IMO of course) is that the commands are executed in the system shell.

If make supplied it's own shell language, a simplified one, then everything would be fantastic.

For one thing, cross platform builds would be much easier to get working as there would be no issue about "is the default shell bash or ash or sh or dash or ksh or whatever" and on Windows there would be no need to use cygwin.

The other thing is there would not need to be such a huge clash between the way expansion works in shells versus make which is very confusing when you combine the two.

rixed 6 hours ago [-]
Yes, but where do you stop? In make shell one would routinely call rm, sed, find... should they be included too? So instead of make including a shell, it would be simpler if busybox included a make.
boris 6 hours ago [-]
> If make supplied it's own shell language, a simplified one, then everything would be fantastic.

We did exactly that in build2, a modern make re-thought. And we provide a bunch of standard utilities like sed, find, etc., that work the same everywhere, including Windows. Here is an example of a non-trivial recipe: https://github.com/build2/libbuild2-autoconf/blob/17f637c1ca...

jhoechtl 10 hours ago [-]
Not for Windows
dima55 11 hours ago [-]
That's great. Thanks for pointing it out.
t43562 7 hours ago [-]
Delighted! :-) Glad someone found it a help
davemp 9 hours ago [-]
I’ve written a fair amount of Makefiles and bounced off of cmake. Recently I’ve started using zig to build some C++ projects and will not be switching back.

Having your build tool just be a library in a good general purpose language is the right move. Why use unergonomic hacks like the OP when you can use a sane language? My build.zig files have LSP completions and similar syntax (or the same) as what I’m building.

I put make solidly in the pile of tools that are only still around because of network effects. We’d have switched to something better if it weren’t defacto installed by every distro and had to make justifications to sys admins to install alternatives.

aeonik 7 hours ago [-]
Same reason I like Clojure tools.build. Any other way feels a little ridiculous to do it any other way.
jgrahamc 12 hours ago [-]
I guess this is here because it's been 20 years and I blogged about it on Monday: https://blog.jgc.org/2025/02/twenty-years-of-gnu-make-standa...
rkangel 11 hours ago [-]
I have written some large build systems entirely in Make. More complex things tend to rely on templates, but you can build arbitrary things, with two main limitations:

The error messages are awful, particularly if using templates. "Unexpected separator. Stop" is a classic, with no indication where in your 2k lines of Make it might be.

You can't have file or folder names with spaces in (usually including any parent folder to where your code is checked out). A "list" in Make is a series of strings separated by spaces. There are various workarounds that people suggest, but none of them work consistently across platforms. You just have to avoid spaces. At least this is less bad since Windows stopped using "Documents and Settings" for "home" folders.

dima55 11 hours ago [-]
GNU Make now has a debugger (`apt install remake`) that eases your first pain point a lot
bonzini 8 hours ago [-]
Even then the problem with doing complicated stuff in Make is that it's very hard to reproduce the environment that triggered the bug in the first place.

I came to the conclusion that you need to treat all of the build system as a linear process, which in Make would mean for example not using "=" at all except to define functions, only use ":=". With this kind of discipline I never really needed a debugger, but really Make is not the right language to write complex logic.

Personally I am a fan of (and contributor to) Meson. It's not perfect but it strikes a good balance between what is in the basic package and what you can do in your build script, and by keeping the build phases separate it really helps with keeping things understandable. The lack of functions can be annoying (and in general I wish it could use Starlark as the language), but it doesn't hurt if you follow the same principle and treat the build script as a data flow process, with each phase producing data structures for the next one. So I think it's generally a good principle to follow.

beardyw 11 hours ago [-]
Make is just the epitome of software development:

Started as a simple idea

Required more sophistication

Became something no one person really understands

dima55 11 hours ago [-]
Did you try reading the manual?
RegW 8 hours ago [-]
Certainly not! That would be a faux pas.
high_na_euv 7 hours ago [-]
When software requires you to read manual, then it is strong hint that it has poor UI UX

Like, you dont read web browser manual to use it, even when using advanced features like debugger or dev console (advanced in compare to non-computer person)

armitron 7 hours ago [-]
Make is a power tool and power tools require effort to fully understand and master (though the base case in Make is surprisingly simple). It also has great documentation (which is something newer generations either don't appreciate or don't care about).
rixed 6 hours ago [-]
Can't find it on youtube, link?
gpderetta 5 hours ago [-]
sarcasm?
rixed 4 hours ago [-]
Indeed. Should delete but it's too late.
shakna 13 hours ago [-]
I wonder how thread-safe the memoisation and/or ALists are? Make's version of parralel processing is a very fun little thing, but has a few quirks around recursion limits that can bite you when going off the beaten path.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Options_0...

throwfgtpwd234 11 hours ago [-]
OP FYI: US copyright law doesn't recognize or require a range of years, only the date of first publication. Many organizations have decided to omit (the) year(s) altogether. https://blog.ntpsec.org/2020/02/15/copyright-year.html
nemoniac 10 hours ago [-]
Check the first comment on the linked page for counterpoint.

Also note that copyright laws exist outside the US and may differ.

throwfgtpwd234 9 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
jgrahamc 11 hours ago [-]
Good to know. I tend to use them as markers of "I started working on this in year XXXX and I last worked on it in year YYYY".
EPWN3D 6 hours ago [-]
Just ran across this last week and pulled it into my Makefiles. Really nice.
p4bl0 12 hours ago [-]
Okay who will be doing this year's Advent of Code in GNU Make?
throwfgtpwd234 11 hours ago [-]
What we really need is a C to GNU Make transpiler written in C just so it can translate itself.
phtrivier 9 hours ago [-]
But what system would you to build that ?
throwfgtpwd234 9 hours ago [-]
GNU Make and GCC, of course.
anthk 6 hours ago [-]

       git clone git://bitreich.org/english_knight
You don't need more.

I wish everyone used mk instead of bloated software.

Unix grew up too much.

ta8645 6 hours ago [-]
That is one seriously funky website; I will not recover from the experience soon.

For anyone who doesn't want to clone the above repo, english_knight turns out to just be a template for idiomatic makefiles. I pasted the relevant file from the repo here:

https://nopaste.net/english_knight

anthk 5 hours ago [-]
Well, you should access bitreich over gopher :)

gopher://bitreich.org

Much better.

ta8645 4 hours ago [-]
You're right. That was less traumatic, but still fun, heh.
Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact
Rendered at 21:10:34 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.