What are the advantages of using `make` for small projects? [on hold]IDE for large, multi-language projects...
En passant for beginners
Everyone is beautiful
How can I deal with a significant flaw I found in my previous supervisor’s paper?
Can you earn endless XP using a Flameskull and its self-revival feature?
Why do neural networks need so many training examples to perform?
What is the wife of a henpecked husband called?
What is better: yes / no radio, or simple checkbox?
Is it a fallacy if someone claims they need an explanation for every word of your argument to the point where they don't understand common terms?
Why would the Pakistan airspace closure cancel flights not headed to Pakistan itself?
Inalienable or irrefutable
What is the time complexity of enqueue and dequeue of a queue implemented with a singly linked list?
The vanishing of sum of coefficients: symmetric polynomials
Does Windows 10's telemetry include sending *.doc files if Word crashed?
Am I using the wrong word all along?
Does the "particle exchange" operator have any validity?
A starship is travelling at 0.9c and collides with a small rock. Will it leave a clean hole through, or will more happen?
Is there a kind of consulting service in Buddhism?
Why zero tolerance on nudity in space?
Why is button three on trumpet almost never used alone?
Dilemma of explaining to interviewer that he is the reason for declining second interview
Can I become debt free or should I file for bankruptcy? How do I manage my debt and finances?
What happens if a wizard reaches level 20 but has no 3rd-level spells that they can use with the Signature Spells feature?
How can I introduce myself to a party without saying that I am a rogue?
What does conditioning on a random variable mean?
What are the advantages of using `make` for small projects? [on hold]
IDE for large, multi-language projects (ie linux kernel)Make Completion Progress Scriptuse bash to pass 2 variables to a MakefileInvoke python script through make commandWhat is the best approach with checking dependencies for third party library during compilation from the sources?How does this Makefile makes C program without even specifying a compiler?make unable to recurse for autoconf-like projectsWhy don't here strings in Makefiles using Bash work?module makefile fails for armv7l when modules are compressedWhat microarchitecture are packages on apt/yum typically built/tuned for?
I've seen that make
is useful for large projects, especially with confusing dependencies described in a Makefile
, and also helping with workflow.
I haven't heard any advantages for using make
for small projects.
Are there any?
scripting compiling make development
New contributor
put on hold as primarily opinion-based by Kusalananda, Rui F Ribeiro, Stephen Harris, l0b0, Vlastimil 4 hours ago
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
|
show 4 more comments
I've seen that make
is useful for large projects, especially with confusing dependencies described in a Makefile
, and also helping with workflow.
I haven't heard any advantages for using make
for small projects.
Are there any?
scripting compiling make development
New contributor
put on hold as primarily opinion-based by Kusalananda, Rui F Ribeiro, Stephen Harris, l0b0, Vlastimil 4 hours ago
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
2
optimism for growth? :) good habits? This might stray into opinion territory.
– Jeff Schaller
21 hours ago
typemake
to discover the answer. make a decent template Makefile and just edit its source files variable. no need to type all that jazz.
– user2497
19 hours ago
they're kind of a nightmare for large projects, so honestly, i'd say they're only good for small projects ;)
– Eevee
18 hours ago
I could use makefiles, but I don't. I've divided my source code for my biggest (personal) project into 10 files, recompile the first, and the first has #includes for the other nine. With the speed of recompilation, it doesn't matter to me if it all gets recompiled every time.
– Jennifer
17 hours ago
1
Laziness :-)make
is so much quicker a command to type than most others, even if you don't create a smart Makefile to handle dependencies cleanly :-)
– Stephen Harris
12 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
I've seen that make
is useful for large projects, especially with confusing dependencies described in a Makefile
, and also helping with workflow.
I haven't heard any advantages for using make
for small projects.
Are there any?
scripting compiling make development
New contributor
I've seen that make
is useful for large projects, especially with confusing dependencies described in a Makefile
, and also helping with workflow.
I haven't heard any advantages for using make
for small projects.
Are there any?
scripting compiling make development
scripting compiling make development
New contributor
New contributor
edited 14 hours ago
G-Man
13.3k93667
13.3k93667
New contributor
asked 21 hours ago
Goodwin LuGoodwin Lu
434
434
New contributor
New contributor
put on hold as primarily opinion-based by Kusalananda, Rui F Ribeiro, Stephen Harris, l0b0, Vlastimil 4 hours ago
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
put on hold as primarily opinion-based by Kusalananda, Rui F Ribeiro, Stephen Harris, l0b0, Vlastimil 4 hours ago
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
2
optimism for growth? :) good habits? This might stray into opinion territory.
– Jeff Schaller
21 hours ago
typemake
to discover the answer. make a decent template Makefile and just edit its source files variable. no need to type all that jazz.
– user2497
19 hours ago
they're kind of a nightmare for large projects, so honestly, i'd say they're only good for small projects ;)
– Eevee
18 hours ago
I could use makefiles, but I don't. I've divided my source code for my biggest (personal) project into 10 files, recompile the first, and the first has #includes for the other nine. With the speed of recompilation, it doesn't matter to me if it all gets recompiled every time.
– Jennifer
17 hours ago
1
Laziness :-)make
is so much quicker a command to type than most others, even if you don't create a smart Makefile to handle dependencies cleanly :-)
– Stephen Harris
12 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
2
optimism for growth? :) good habits? This might stray into opinion territory.
– Jeff Schaller
21 hours ago
typemake
to discover the answer. make a decent template Makefile and just edit its source files variable. no need to type all that jazz.
– user2497
19 hours ago
they're kind of a nightmare for large projects, so honestly, i'd say they're only good for small projects ;)
– Eevee
18 hours ago
I could use makefiles, but I don't. I've divided my source code for my biggest (personal) project into 10 files, recompile the first, and the first has #includes for the other nine. With the speed of recompilation, it doesn't matter to me if it all gets recompiled every time.
– Jennifer
17 hours ago
1
Laziness :-)make
is so much quicker a command to type than most others, even if you don't create a smart Makefile to handle dependencies cleanly :-)
– Stephen Harris
12 hours ago
2
2
optimism for growth? :) good habits? This might stray into opinion territory.
– Jeff Schaller
21 hours ago
optimism for growth? :) good habits? This might stray into opinion territory.
– Jeff Schaller
21 hours ago
type
make
to discover the answer. make a decent template Makefile and just edit its source files variable. no need to type all that jazz.– user2497
19 hours ago
type
make
to discover the answer. make a decent template Makefile and just edit its source files variable. no need to type all that jazz.– user2497
19 hours ago
they're kind of a nightmare for large projects, so honestly, i'd say they're only good for small projects ;)
– Eevee
18 hours ago
they're kind of a nightmare for large projects, so honestly, i'd say they're only good for small projects ;)
– Eevee
18 hours ago
I could use makefiles, but I don't. I've divided my source code for my biggest (personal) project into 10 files, recompile the first, and the first has #includes for the other nine. With the speed of recompilation, it doesn't matter to me if it all gets recompiled every time.
– Jennifer
17 hours ago
I could use makefiles, but I don't. I've divided my source code for my biggest (personal) project into 10 files, recompile the first, and the first has #includes for the other nine. With the speed of recompilation, it doesn't matter to me if it all gets recompiled every time.
– Jennifer
17 hours ago
1
1
Laziness :-)
make
is so much quicker a command to type than most others, even if you don't create a smart Makefile to handle dependencies cleanly :-)– Stephen Harris
12 hours ago
Laziness :-)
make
is so much quicker a command to type than most others, even if you don't create a smart Makefile to handle dependencies cleanly :-)– Stephen Harris
12 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
As opposed to what?
Suppose you have a program that you have split into two files,
which you have imaginatively named file1.c
and file2.c
.
You can compile the program by running
cc file1.c file2.c -o yourprogram
But this requires recompiling both files every time,
even if only one has changed.
You can decompose the compilation steps into
cc -c file1.c
cc -c file2.c
cc file1.o file2.o -o yourprogram
and then, when you edit one of the files, recompile only that file
(and perform the linking step no matter what you changed).
But what if you edit one file, and then the other,
and you forget that you edited both files,
and accidentally recompile only one?
Also, even for just two files,
you’ve got about 60 characters’ worth of commands there.
That quickly gets tedious to type.
OK, sure, you could put them into a script,
but then you’re back to recompiling every time.
Or you could write a really fancy, complicated script that checks
what file(s) had been modified and does only the necessary compilations.
Do you see where I’m going with this?
For very small projects,gcc -O3 -march=native -fwhole-program *.c
is basically fine for an edit / compile / profile cycle. But you still want a Makefile for other people to use. Being able to use-fwhole-program
is a fun advantage of compiling everything together, but-flto
normally gives you pretty much the same optimizations.
– Peter Cordes
17 hours ago
2
Once I start adding switches to the compiler command line (even for one source file), I find it gets tricky to remember them the next time. Occasionally I'll just put a comment in the source file, but at that point I should just use a Makefile...
– Roger Lipscombe
16 hours ago
@ger Lipscombe: And if you need to compile for different environments, it's as simple as defining a few macros in your makefile. And with a little creativity, you can hook the make command to an editior function key, capture the output in a file, and use another key to put you at the position of any errors...
– jamesqf
13 hours ago
add a comment |
A lot of other people are getting into the details of more complex makefiles and a lot of the complexity that comes with them. I typically use makefiles for a completely different reason:
I don't want to remember anything.
Even if your project is really boring and simple, and you don't use makefiles "correctly":
all:
gcc main.c -o project
I don't need to think about it or treat it any differently than a project that's more complex:
all:
gcc libA.c libB.c main.c -o project2
Or if I specified flags (e.g. -O2
) I don't need to remember what they were.
Also, if you start with a simple makefile, and you need to merge/refactor things later, you don't need to remember to build every project differently.
add a comment |
Even with small project it can be helpful keeping the dependency logic under control and builds automated. I also used it to trigger installs and deinstallations, so it was a main switch resetting the stage.
add a comment |
If you link your app from 2 sources (.c
files) , you do not need to recompile each file, but only the changed one if you are using make.
Also, I will give you example from BSD world. They have framework of system-based Makefiles. They provide you paths to system directories and have targets to install your software and manual pages.
For example, you just wrote beer.c
app and manual for it called beer.6
.
You create Makefile
:
PROG= beer
MAN= beer.6
.include <bsd.prog.mk>
..and call make install
. It automatically compiles and installs your app to /usr/bin
and compiles and installs your man page to the place where man
can find it. You just installed your app with one simple command!
Very convenient and absolutely transparent for anyone who is familiar with BSD.
Much better than manual script.
add a comment |
make
is pretty reliably available. If you distribute your project with a makefile
, users will have a simple reference for how to achieve tasks in the same way you do. The makefile
can be for more than just compilation.
Take a project that doesn't require compilation, for example. I recall working on a Python project that had a make command to clear out all the .pyc
files, a make command to run the tests, one to download a copy of the static data from the development server, etc.
New contributor
add a comment |
Example Makefile
for my very small project: getPixelColor
It does exactly what its name says, taking two optional arguments, the coordinates.
I especially like the way things get dependent there.
COORDS ?= 0 0
CXX := g++-8
CXXFLAGS := -std=c++17 -Wall -Wextra -Werror -Wpedantic -pedantic-errors
LDLIBS := -lX11
RM := rm -f
BIN := getPixelColor
SRC := $(BIN).cpp
$(BIN): $(SRC)
$(CXX) $(CXXFLAGS) $(SRC) -o $(BIN) $(LDLIBS)
.PHONY: clean
clean:
$(RM) $(BIN)
.PHONY: run
run: $(BIN)
./$(BIN) $(COORDS)
As you can see, it can do all you need, without typing anything extra:
Usage
You can run it these ways:
Clean-up the old binary:
make clean
Compile a new binary:
make
Run the executable in 2 ways:
the default coordinates [0,0]
make run # equals COORDS='0 0'
any given coordinates
COORDS='5 6' make run
Makefiles can be extremely helpful at times. The bigger the project, the bigger the benefit. But even with that my smallest C++ project, as you can see on examples saves you a lot of headaches.
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
As opposed to what?
Suppose you have a program that you have split into two files,
which you have imaginatively named file1.c
and file2.c
.
You can compile the program by running
cc file1.c file2.c -o yourprogram
But this requires recompiling both files every time,
even if only one has changed.
You can decompose the compilation steps into
cc -c file1.c
cc -c file2.c
cc file1.o file2.o -o yourprogram
and then, when you edit one of the files, recompile only that file
(and perform the linking step no matter what you changed).
But what if you edit one file, and then the other,
and you forget that you edited both files,
and accidentally recompile only one?
Also, even for just two files,
you’ve got about 60 characters’ worth of commands there.
That quickly gets tedious to type.
OK, sure, you could put them into a script,
but then you’re back to recompiling every time.
Or you could write a really fancy, complicated script that checks
what file(s) had been modified and does only the necessary compilations.
Do you see where I’m going with this?
For very small projects,gcc -O3 -march=native -fwhole-program *.c
is basically fine for an edit / compile / profile cycle. But you still want a Makefile for other people to use. Being able to use-fwhole-program
is a fun advantage of compiling everything together, but-flto
normally gives you pretty much the same optimizations.
– Peter Cordes
17 hours ago
2
Once I start adding switches to the compiler command line (even for one source file), I find it gets tricky to remember them the next time. Occasionally I'll just put a comment in the source file, but at that point I should just use a Makefile...
– Roger Lipscombe
16 hours ago
@ger Lipscombe: And if you need to compile for different environments, it's as simple as defining a few macros in your makefile. And with a little creativity, you can hook the make command to an editior function key, capture the output in a file, and use another key to put you at the position of any errors...
– jamesqf
13 hours ago
add a comment |
As opposed to what?
Suppose you have a program that you have split into two files,
which you have imaginatively named file1.c
and file2.c
.
You can compile the program by running
cc file1.c file2.c -o yourprogram
But this requires recompiling both files every time,
even if only one has changed.
You can decompose the compilation steps into
cc -c file1.c
cc -c file2.c
cc file1.o file2.o -o yourprogram
and then, when you edit one of the files, recompile only that file
(and perform the linking step no matter what you changed).
But what if you edit one file, and then the other,
and you forget that you edited both files,
and accidentally recompile only one?
Also, even for just two files,
you’ve got about 60 characters’ worth of commands there.
That quickly gets tedious to type.
OK, sure, you could put them into a script,
but then you’re back to recompiling every time.
Or you could write a really fancy, complicated script that checks
what file(s) had been modified and does only the necessary compilations.
Do you see where I’m going with this?
For very small projects,gcc -O3 -march=native -fwhole-program *.c
is basically fine for an edit / compile / profile cycle. But you still want a Makefile for other people to use. Being able to use-fwhole-program
is a fun advantage of compiling everything together, but-flto
normally gives you pretty much the same optimizations.
– Peter Cordes
17 hours ago
2
Once I start adding switches to the compiler command line (even for one source file), I find it gets tricky to remember them the next time. Occasionally I'll just put a comment in the source file, but at that point I should just use a Makefile...
– Roger Lipscombe
16 hours ago
@ger Lipscombe: And if you need to compile for different environments, it's as simple as defining a few macros in your makefile. And with a little creativity, you can hook the make command to an editior function key, capture the output in a file, and use another key to put you at the position of any errors...
– jamesqf
13 hours ago
add a comment |
As opposed to what?
Suppose you have a program that you have split into two files,
which you have imaginatively named file1.c
and file2.c
.
You can compile the program by running
cc file1.c file2.c -o yourprogram
But this requires recompiling both files every time,
even if only one has changed.
You can decompose the compilation steps into
cc -c file1.c
cc -c file2.c
cc file1.o file2.o -o yourprogram
and then, when you edit one of the files, recompile only that file
(and perform the linking step no matter what you changed).
But what if you edit one file, and then the other,
and you forget that you edited both files,
and accidentally recompile only one?
Also, even for just two files,
you’ve got about 60 characters’ worth of commands there.
That quickly gets tedious to type.
OK, sure, you could put them into a script,
but then you’re back to recompiling every time.
Or you could write a really fancy, complicated script that checks
what file(s) had been modified and does only the necessary compilations.
Do you see where I’m going with this?
As opposed to what?
Suppose you have a program that you have split into two files,
which you have imaginatively named file1.c
and file2.c
.
You can compile the program by running
cc file1.c file2.c -o yourprogram
But this requires recompiling both files every time,
even if only one has changed.
You can decompose the compilation steps into
cc -c file1.c
cc -c file2.c
cc file1.o file2.o -o yourprogram
and then, when you edit one of the files, recompile only that file
(and perform the linking step no matter what you changed).
But what if you edit one file, and then the other,
and you forget that you edited both files,
and accidentally recompile only one?
Also, even for just two files,
you’ve got about 60 characters’ worth of commands there.
That quickly gets tedious to type.
OK, sure, you could put them into a script,
but then you’re back to recompiling every time.
Or you could write a really fancy, complicated script that checks
what file(s) had been modified and does only the necessary compilations.
Do you see where I’m going with this?
answered 20 hours ago
G-ManG-Man
13.3k93667
13.3k93667
For very small projects,gcc -O3 -march=native -fwhole-program *.c
is basically fine for an edit / compile / profile cycle. But you still want a Makefile for other people to use. Being able to use-fwhole-program
is a fun advantage of compiling everything together, but-flto
normally gives you pretty much the same optimizations.
– Peter Cordes
17 hours ago
2
Once I start adding switches to the compiler command line (even for one source file), I find it gets tricky to remember them the next time. Occasionally I'll just put a comment in the source file, but at that point I should just use a Makefile...
– Roger Lipscombe
16 hours ago
@ger Lipscombe: And if you need to compile for different environments, it's as simple as defining a few macros in your makefile. And with a little creativity, you can hook the make command to an editior function key, capture the output in a file, and use another key to put you at the position of any errors...
– jamesqf
13 hours ago
add a comment |
For very small projects,gcc -O3 -march=native -fwhole-program *.c
is basically fine for an edit / compile / profile cycle. But you still want a Makefile for other people to use. Being able to use-fwhole-program
is a fun advantage of compiling everything together, but-flto
normally gives you pretty much the same optimizations.
– Peter Cordes
17 hours ago
2
Once I start adding switches to the compiler command line (even for one source file), I find it gets tricky to remember them the next time. Occasionally I'll just put a comment in the source file, but at that point I should just use a Makefile...
– Roger Lipscombe
16 hours ago
@ger Lipscombe: And if you need to compile for different environments, it's as simple as defining a few macros in your makefile. And with a little creativity, you can hook the make command to an editior function key, capture the output in a file, and use another key to put you at the position of any errors...
– jamesqf
13 hours ago
For very small projects,
gcc -O3 -march=native -fwhole-program *.c
is basically fine for an edit / compile / profile cycle. But you still want a Makefile for other people to use. Being able to use -fwhole-program
is a fun advantage of compiling everything together, but -flto
normally gives you pretty much the same optimizations.– Peter Cordes
17 hours ago
For very small projects,
gcc -O3 -march=native -fwhole-program *.c
is basically fine for an edit / compile / profile cycle. But you still want a Makefile for other people to use. Being able to use -fwhole-program
is a fun advantage of compiling everything together, but -flto
normally gives you pretty much the same optimizations.– Peter Cordes
17 hours ago
2
2
Once I start adding switches to the compiler command line (even for one source file), I find it gets tricky to remember them the next time. Occasionally I'll just put a comment in the source file, but at that point I should just use a Makefile...
– Roger Lipscombe
16 hours ago
Once I start adding switches to the compiler command line (even for one source file), I find it gets tricky to remember them the next time. Occasionally I'll just put a comment in the source file, but at that point I should just use a Makefile...
– Roger Lipscombe
16 hours ago
@ger Lipscombe: And if you need to compile for different environments, it's as simple as defining a few macros in your makefile. And with a little creativity, you can hook the make command to an editior function key, capture the output in a file, and use another key to put you at the position of any errors...
– jamesqf
13 hours ago
@ger Lipscombe: And if you need to compile for different environments, it's as simple as defining a few macros in your makefile. And with a little creativity, you can hook the make command to an editior function key, capture the output in a file, and use another key to put you at the position of any errors...
– jamesqf
13 hours ago
add a comment |
A lot of other people are getting into the details of more complex makefiles and a lot of the complexity that comes with them. I typically use makefiles for a completely different reason:
I don't want to remember anything.
Even if your project is really boring and simple, and you don't use makefiles "correctly":
all:
gcc main.c -o project
I don't need to think about it or treat it any differently than a project that's more complex:
all:
gcc libA.c libB.c main.c -o project2
Or if I specified flags (e.g. -O2
) I don't need to remember what they were.
Also, if you start with a simple makefile, and you need to merge/refactor things later, you don't need to remember to build every project differently.
add a comment |
A lot of other people are getting into the details of more complex makefiles and a lot of the complexity that comes with them. I typically use makefiles for a completely different reason:
I don't want to remember anything.
Even if your project is really boring and simple, and you don't use makefiles "correctly":
all:
gcc main.c -o project
I don't need to think about it or treat it any differently than a project that's more complex:
all:
gcc libA.c libB.c main.c -o project2
Or if I specified flags (e.g. -O2
) I don't need to remember what they were.
Also, if you start with a simple makefile, and you need to merge/refactor things later, you don't need to remember to build every project differently.
add a comment |
A lot of other people are getting into the details of more complex makefiles and a lot of the complexity that comes with them. I typically use makefiles for a completely different reason:
I don't want to remember anything.
Even if your project is really boring and simple, and you don't use makefiles "correctly":
all:
gcc main.c -o project
I don't need to think about it or treat it any differently than a project that's more complex:
all:
gcc libA.c libB.c main.c -o project2
Or if I specified flags (e.g. -O2
) I don't need to remember what they were.
Also, if you start with a simple makefile, and you need to merge/refactor things later, you don't need to remember to build every project differently.
A lot of other people are getting into the details of more complex makefiles and a lot of the complexity that comes with them. I typically use makefiles for a completely different reason:
I don't want to remember anything.
Even if your project is really boring and simple, and you don't use makefiles "correctly":
all:
gcc main.c -o project
I don't need to think about it or treat it any differently than a project that's more complex:
all:
gcc libA.c libB.c main.c -o project2
Or if I specified flags (e.g. -O2
) I don't need to remember what they were.
Also, if you start with a simple makefile, and you need to merge/refactor things later, you don't need to remember to build every project differently.
answered 14 hours ago
Stack TracerStack Tracer
24116
24116
add a comment |
add a comment |
Even with small project it can be helpful keeping the dependency logic under control and builds automated. I also used it to trigger installs and deinstallations, so it was a main switch resetting the stage.
add a comment |
Even with small project it can be helpful keeping the dependency logic under control and builds automated. I also used it to trigger installs and deinstallations, so it was a main switch resetting the stage.
add a comment |
Even with small project it can be helpful keeping the dependency logic under control and builds automated. I also used it to trigger installs and deinstallations, so it was a main switch resetting the stage.
Even with small project it can be helpful keeping the dependency logic under control and builds automated. I also used it to trigger installs and deinstallations, so it was a main switch resetting the stage.
answered 20 hours ago
TomaszTomasz
9,94952966
9,94952966
add a comment |
add a comment |
If you link your app from 2 sources (.c
files) , you do not need to recompile each file, but only the changed one if you are using make.
Also, I will give you example from BSD world. They have framework of system-based Makefiles. They provide you paths to system directories and have targets to install your software and manual pages.
For example, you just wrote beer.c
app and manual for it called beer.6
.
You create Makefile
:
PROG= beer
MAN= beer.6
.include <bsd.prog.mk>
..and call make install
. It automatically compiles and installs your app to /usr/bin
and compiles and installs your man page to the place where man
can find it. You just installed your app with one simple command!
Very convenient and absolutely transparent for anyone who is familiar with BSD.
Much better than manual script.
add a comment |
If you link your app from 2 sources (.c
files) , you do not need to recompile each file, but only the changed one if you are using make.
Also, I will give you example from BSD world. They have framework of system-based Makefiles. They provide you paths to system directories and have targets to install your software and manual pages.
For example, you just wrote beer.c
app and manual for it called beer.6
.
You create Makefile
:
PROG= beer
MAN= beer.6
.include <bsd.prog.mk>
..and call make install
. It automatically compiles and installs your app to /usr/bin
and compiles and installs your man page to the place where man
can find it. You just installed your app with one simple command!
Very convenient and absolutely transparent for anyone who is familiar with BSD.
Much better than manual script.
add a comment |
If you link your app from 2 sources (.c
files) , you do not need to recompile each file, but only the changed one if you are using make.
Also, I will give you example from BSD world. They have framework of system-based Makefiles. They provide you paths to system directories and have targets to install your software and manual pages.
For example, you just wrote beer.c
app and manual for it called beer.6
.
You create Makefile
:
PROG= beer
MAN= beer.6
.include <bsd.prog.mk>
..and call make install
. It automatically compiles and installs your app to /usr/bin
and compiles and installs your man page to the place where man
can find it. You just installed your app with one simple command!
Very convenient and absolutely transparent for anyone who is familiar with BSD.
Much better than manual script.
If you link your app from 2 sources (.c
files) , you do not need to recompile each file, but only the changed one if you are using make.
Also, I will give you example from BSD world. They have framework of system-based Makefiles. They provide you paths to system directories and have targets to install your software and manual pages.
For example, you just wrote beer.c
app and manual for it called beer.6
.
You create Makefile
:
PROG= beer
MAN= beer.6
.include <bsd.prog.mk>
..and call make install
. It automatically compiles and installs your app to /usr/bin
and compiles and installs your man page to the place where man
can find it. You just installed your app with one simple command!
Very convenient and absolutely transparent for anyone who is familiar with BSD.
Much better than manual script.
answered 15 hours ago
user996142user996142
43739
43739
add a comment |
add a comment |
make
is pretty reliably available. If you distribute your project with a makefile
, users will have a simple reference for how to achieve tasks in the same way you do. The makefile
can be for more than just compilation.
Take a project that doesn't require compilation, for example. I recall working on a Python project that had a make command to clear out all the .pyc
files, a make command to run the tests, one to download a copy of the static data from the development server, etc.
New contributor
add a comment |
make
is pretty reliably available. If you distribute your project with a makefile
, users will have a simple reference for how to achieve tasks in the same way you do. The makefile
can be for more than just compilation.
Take a project that doesn't require compilation, for example. I recall working on a Python project that had a make command to clear out all the .pyc
files, a make command to run the tests, one to download a copy of the static data from the development server, etc.
New contributor
add a comment |
make
is pretty reliably available. If you distribute your project with a makefile
, users will have a simple reference for how to achieve tasks in the same way you do. The makefile
can be for more than just compilation.
Take a project that doesn't require compilation, for example. I recall working on a Python project that had a make command to clear out all the .pyc
files, a make command to run the tests, one to download a copy of the static data from the development server, etc.
New contributor
make
is pretty reliably available. If you distribute your project with a makefile
, users will have a simple reference for how to achieve tasks in the same way you do. The makefile
can be for more than just compilation.
Take a project that doesn't require compilation, for example. I recall working on a Python project that had a make command to clear out all the .pyc
files, a make command to run the tests, one to download a copy of the static data from the development server, etc.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 11 hours ago
Adam BarnesAdam Barnes
1011
1011
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Example Makefile
for my very small project: getPixelColor
It does exactly what its name says, taking two optional arguments, the coordinates.
I especially like the way things get dependent there.
COORDS ?= 0 0
CXX := g++-8
CXXFLAGS := -std=c++17 -Wall -Wextra -Werror -Wpedantic -pedantic-errors
LDLIBS := -lX11
RM := rm -f
BIN := getPixelColor
SRC := $(BIN).cpp
$(BIN): $(SRC)
$(CXX) $(CXXFLAGS) $(SRC) -o $(BIN) $(LDLIBS)
.PHONY: clean
clean:
$(RM) $(BIN)
.PHONY: run
run: $(BIN)
./$(BIN) $(COORDS)
As you can see, it can do all you need, without typing anything extra:
Usage
You can run it these ways:
Clean-up the old binary:
make clean
Compile a new binary:
make
Run the executable in 2 ways:
the default coordinates [0,0]
make run # equals COORDS='0 0'
any given coordinates
COORDS='5 6' make run
Makefiles can be extremely helpful at times. The bigger the project, the bigger the benefit. But even with that my smallest C++ project, as you can see on examples saves you a lot of headaches.
add a comment |
Example Makefile
for my very small project: getPixelColor
It does exactly what its name says, taking two optional arguments, the coordinates.
I especially like the way things get dependent there.
COORDS ?= 0 0
CXX := g++-8
CXXFLAGS := -std=c++17 -Wall -Wextra -Werror -Wpedantic -pedantic-errors
LDLIBS := -lX11
RM := rm -f
BIN := getPixelColor
SRC := $(BIN).cpp
$(BIN): $(SRC)
$(CXX) $(CXXFLAGS) $(SRC) -o $(BIN) $(LDLIBS)
.PHONY: clean
clean:
$(RM) $(BIN)
.PHONY: run
run: $(BIN)
./$(BIN) $(COORDS)
As you can see, it can do all you need, without typing anything extra:
Usage
You can run it these ways:
Clean-up the old binary:
make clean
Compile a new binary:
make
Run the executable in 2 ways:
the default coordinates [0,0]
make run # equals COORDS='0 0'
any given coordinates
COORDS='5 6' make run
Makefiles can be extremely helpful at times. The bigger the project, the bigger the benefit. But even with that my smallest C++ project, as you can see on examples saves you a lot of headaches.
add a comment |
Example Makefile
for my very small project: getPixelColor
It does exactly what its name says, taking two optional arguments, the coordinates.
I especially like the way things get dependent there.
COORDS ?= 0 0
CXX := g++-8
CXXFLAGS := -std=c++17 -Wall -Wextra -Werror -Wpedantic -pedantic-errors
LDLIBS := -lX11
RM := rm -f
BIN := getPixelColor
SRC := $(BIN).cpp
$(BIN): $(SRC)
$(CXX) $(CXXFLAGS) $(SRC) -o $(BIN) $(LDLIBS)
.PHONY: clean
clean:
$(RM) $(BIN)
.PHONY: run
run: $(BIN)
./$(BIN) $(COORDS)
As you can see, it can do all you need, without typing anything extra:
Usage
You can run it these ways:
Clean-up the old binary:
make clean
Compile a new binary:
make
Run the executable in 2 ways:
the default coordinates [0,0]
make run # equals COORDS='0 0'
any given coordinates
COORDS='5 6' make run
Makefiles can be extremely helpful at times. The bigger the project, the bigger the benefit. But even with that my smallest C++ project, as you can see on examples saves you a lot of headaches.
Example Makefile
for my very small project: getPixelColor
It does exactly what its name says, taking two optional arguments, the coordinates.
I especially like the way things get dependent there.
COORDS ?= 0 0
CXX := g++-8
CXXFLAGS := -std=c++17 -Wall -Wextra -Werror -Wpedantic -pedantic-errors
LDLIBS := -lX11
RM := rm -f
BIN := getPixelColor
SRC := $(BIN).cpp
$(BIN): $(SRC)
$(CXX) $(CXXFLAGS) $(SRC) -o $(BIN) $(LDLIBS)
.PHONY: clean
clean:
$(RM) $(BIN)
.PHONY: run
run: $(BIN)
./$(BIN) $(COORDS)
As you can see, it can do all you need, without typing anything extra:
Usage
You can run it these ways:
Clean-up the old binary:
make clean
Compile a new binary:
make
Run the executable in 2 ways:
the default coordinates [0,0]
make run # equals COORDS='0 0'
any given coordinates
COORDS='5 6' make run
Makefiles can be extremely helpful at times. The bigger the project, the bigger the benefit. But even with that my smallest C++ project, as you can see on examples saves you a lot of headaches.
edited 4 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
VlastimilVlastimil
8,1311464139
8,1311464139
add a comment |
add a comment |
2
optimism for growth? :) good habits? This might stray into opinion territory.
– Jeff Schaller
21 hours ago
type
make
to discover the answer. make a decent template Makefile and just edit its source files variable. no need to type all that jazz.– user2497
19 hours ago
they're kind of a nightmare for large projects, so honestly, i'd say they're only good for small projects ;)
– Eevee
18 hours ago
I could use makefiles, but I don't. I've divided my source code for my biggest (personal) project into 10 files, recompile the first, and the first has #includes for the other nine. With the speed of recompilation, it doesn't matter to me if it all gets recompiled every time.
– Jennifer
17 hours ago
1
Laziness :-)
make
is so much quicker a command to type than most others, even if you don't create a smart Makefile to handle dependencies cleanly :-)– Stephen Harris
12 hours ago