Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 18:52:05 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Kent Stewart <kstewart@3-cities.com> Cc: "freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Make File Generator Message-ID: <19990202185205.A76680@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <36B6A459.F889B88E@3-cities.com>; from Kent Stewart on Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 11:08:09PM -0800 References: <36B5FF82.D89176C1@3-cities.com> <19990202094916.R71384@freebie.lemis.com> <36B68FF4.48331073@3-cities.com> <19990202162039.U76680@freebie.lemis.com> <36B6A459.F889B88E@3-cities.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday, 1 February 1999 at 23:08:09 -0800, Kent Stewart wrote:
> Greg Lehey wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, 1 February 1999 at 21:41:08 -0800, Kent Stewart wrote:
>>> Greg Lehey wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 1 February 1999 at 11:24:50 -0800, Kent Stewart wrote:
>>>>> On most of the Unix systems I have used there is a make generator for
>>>>> Fortran. I don't see such a product on FreeBSD for f77. I have a large
>>>>> program, i.e., more than 300 modules, that was last used on a Cray. The
>>>>> sources as provided do not contain a makefile. I would like to try and build
>>>>> it on FreeBSD but would hate to have to create the makefile by hand <grin>.
>>>>> Is there something like mkmf that will generate a makefile.
>>>>
>>>> Not that I know of. Have you tried gmake? It knows about Fortran
>>>> programs. You probably need very little to make a usable Makefile.
>>>> For example, if you create a single executable out of your 300 .f
>>>> programs, you might do:
>>>>
>>>> $ ls *.f | xargs | sed 's/^/PROG: /' > Makefile
>>>>
>>>> Substitute the name of your program for PROG.
>>>
>>> I had thought about gmake. The gmake manual is intimdating. It is easy to
>>> modify something that is generated and works. Creating the makefile from
>>> scratch is something else. I also assumed that I needed to supply parameters
>>> to the veraious steps. Your suggested sequence was so simple that it was
>>> worth it to see what it would do. The problem is that the main program
>>> overwhelms the table and kills the build on the first module and continues
>>> on. The message I get is that I have to supply -Nn802 to f77 for the main
>>> program. I don't think it would matter if the table was extended for all of
>>> the modules. I didn't capture the output; however, the defaults appear to
>>> work for everything else. The other thing is that this process isn't
>>> generating object output and it takes about 45 minutes to compile
>>> everything. That becomes a serious problem because it recompiles everything,
>>> everytime.
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand this, but it doesn't sound right. What does
>> your Makefile look like?
>
> I used the piped command and starts out with the program name: a.f a1.f a2.f
> ... name.f ... z.f
>
> The line wraps many times <grin>.
>
> I have downloaded the GMake Manual and I'm looking at adding the rules. It
> will have to be broken into the separate modules.
Why?
>>> A make generator should create something that looks like
>>>
>>> stuff ...
>>>
>>> main.o : main.f
>>> f77 -? main.f
>>> link1.o : link1.f
>>> f77 -? link1.f
>>
>> No, a Makefile generator should *never* generate something like that
>> unless each and every module needs a different command, which would be
>> very poor style. You can replace all of this stuff with:
>>
>> .f.o:
>> f77 -? $<
>>
>> This has the advantage that it will still work if you add modules to
>> the directory.
>
> I like that. It is KISS simple. There are actually two programs with some
> modules being shared and not all but I'm not worrying about that
> right now.
Ah. That's different, of course. Yes, that *is* something to worry
about. But then all you need is:
all: prog1 prog2
prog1: a.o b.o c.o g.o
prog2: a.o d.o f.o g.o
> It is easier to build each in their own directory.
Not necessarily. Then you need PATH directives and make
implementation dependent things. If they share a lot of modules,
you're better off in one directory.
>> To get object files for each source file, try making the Makefile like
>> this:
>>
>> $ ls *.f | sed 's/.f$/.o/ | xargs | sed 's/^/PROG: /' > Makefile
>>
>> This will make the program dependent on the objects and not on the
>> sources.
>
> It looked like it was starting out right but complains about too
> many names.
Hmm. I tried it and found I'd left out an apostrophe. Should be:
$ls *.f | sed 's/.f$/.o/' | xargs | sed 's/^/PROG: /' > Makefile
When I run it on this directory:
$ ls
Makefile ew.f g.f hfg.f rq.f we.f wqer.f
cwste.f ewr.f gd.f hw.f sd.f weyt.f
d.f f.f gdf.f qw.f tq.f wq.f
df.f fd.f h.f qwe.f w.f wqe.f
I get:
PROG: cwste.o d.o df.o ew.o ewr.o f.o fd.o g.o gd.o gdf.o h.o hfg.o hw.o qw.o qwe.o rq.o sd.o tq.o w.o we.o weyt.o wq.o wqe.o wqer.o
Then I run gmake:
$ gmake -k
f77 -c cwste.f -o cwste.o
f77 -c d.f -o d.o
f77 -c df.f -o df.o
f77 -c ew.f -o ew.o
f77 -c ewr.f -o ewr.o
f77 -c f.f -o f.o
f77 -c fd.f -o fd.o
f77 -c g.f -o g.o
f77 -c gd.f -o gd.o
f77 -c gdf.f -o gdf.o
f77 -c h.f -o h.o
f77 -c hfg.f -o hfg.o
f77 -c hw.f -o hw.o
f77 -c qw.f -o qw.o
f77 -c qwe.f -o qwe.o
f77 -c rq.f -o rq.o
f77 -c sd.f -o sd.o
f77 -c tq.f -o tq.o
f77 -c w.f -o w.o
f77 -c we.f -o we.o
f77 -c weyt.f -o weyt.o
f77 -c wq.f -o wq.o
f77 -c wqe.f -o wqe.o
f77 -c wqer.f -o wqer.o
This doesn't perform the link stage. You'd need a rule for that.
Change again:
$ ls *.f | sed 's/.f$/.o/' | xargs | sed 's/^/OBJS = /' > Makefile
This gives the first line of the following Makefile; you need to add
the rest yourself:
OBJS = cwste.o d.o df.o ew.o ewr.o f.o fd.o g.o gd.o gdf.o h.o hfg.o hw.o qw.o qwe.o rq.o sd.o tq.o w.o we.o weyt.o wq.o wqe.o wqer.o
prog: ${OBJS}
ld -o $@ ${OBJS}
When I run gmake, I get:
$ gmake
ld -o prog cwste.o d.o df.o ew.o ewr.o f.o fd.o g.o gd.o gdf.o h.o hfg.o hw.o qw.o qwe.o rq.o sd.o tq.o w.o we.o weyt.o wq.o wqe.o wqer.o
/usr/libexec/elf/ld: warning: cannot find entry symbol _start; defaulting to 08048074
This last message tells me that I at least have created a broken
executable; since all my modules are empty, that's not surprising. It
should work for you.
> I will have to create the rules version and see what it does.
Nope, you never need that.
> I still haven't seen an option to create object output.
Yes you have, you just didn't recognize it :-)
Greg
--
See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers
finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990202185205.A76680>