Re: [Cocci] Replacing suffix rules in make scripts?
> So I get the impression that an other build approach will be safer there. > How do you think about to add a dependency specification so that interface > descriptions will be always compiled before the corresponding OCaml code? I showed change possibilities which can improve the software situation to some degree. * Improve several dependency specifications in make rules https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/pull/108 * Fix specifications for build dependencies between shared components https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/110 * Support references for the top-level source file directory in build scripts https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/104 Which ideas would you like to integrate from the available development approaches? Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Replacing suffix rules in make scripts?
> Why do I get such an error message for a parallel software build attempt > when the specified dependencies worked as expected for the non-parallel > build try before? How do you think about the corresponding update suggestion “Improve some dependency specifications in make rules”? https://github.com/elfring/Coccinelle-20160205/commit/9597598779f3604272621f6d42ead79eaafad2a8 Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Replacing suffix rules in make scripts?
> The OCaml makefile specifies an order in which the files should be > compiled in the project. If you are sidestepping that ordering, then you > are not doing things in the intended manner. I hope that some details were clarified to some degree in the meantime. > There is only an intent to support running make or make opt in the > subdirectories or at the root. Perhaps Thierry will put a new make file > that has some other properties (I don't know which ones) in the future. > But there is no intent to support anything else at the moment. I suggest to take also another look around the discussed build scripts. Example: https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/cd539cd12ad0674d5a8f4c33f6c21ae00aec8e57/globals/Makefile#L50 Now I wonder about the following test result for my current “developer rules”. elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205/globals> make clean && LANG=C make --no-builtin-rules V=1 && make clean && LANG=C make --no-builtin-rules -j4 V=1 rm -f … /usr/bin/ocamldep -I ../commons -I /home/elfring/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205/bundles/pcre/ *.mli *.ml > .depend … /usr/bin/ocamlc.opt -unsafe -I ../commons -I /home/elfring/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205/bundles/pcre/ -c flag.ml … /usr/bin/ocamlc.opt -unsafe -I ../commons -I /home/elfring/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205/bundles/pcre/ -a -o globals.cma config.cmo flag.cmo regexp_pcre.cmo regexp.cmo iteration.cmo rm -f … /usr/bin/ocamldep -I ../commons -I /home/elfring/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205/bundles/pcre/ *.mli *.ml > .depend … /usr/bin/ocamlc.opt -unsafe -I ../commons -I /home/elfring/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205/bundles/pcre/ -c flag.ml … /usr/bin/ocamlc.opt -unsafe -I ../commons -I /home/elfring/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205/bundles/pcre/ -c iteration.mli make: *** No rule to make target 'flag.cmi', needed by 'iteration.cmo'. Stop. … Why do I get such an error message for a parallel software build attempt when the specified dependencies worked as expected for the non-parallel build try before? Do you get any more ideas on how to explain such a test surprise? Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Replacing suffix rules in make scripts?
> OK, I don't undertand what command you are doing to get the problem, Did we achieve a better common understanding in the meantime? > so I can't reproduce it, so I can't determine whether it is a real issue. * Are you really keen to achieve this also in your own test environments? * How much does my build difficulty fit into your development attention and software change capacity? > The OCaml makefile specifies an order in which the files should be > compiled in the project. If you are sidestepping that ordering, then you > are not doing things in the intended manner. I am just curious to fix the dependency checking (without unexpected side effects) for build prerequisites somehow in the involved software components. Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Replacing suffix rules in make scripts?
> The command “ocamldep *.mli *.ml > .depend” was performed for > relevant subdirectories. > Unfortunately, this approach seems to be insufficient for the desired > safe integration of dependency information so far. I have got another idea. The adjustment results were more promising for my build script changes in other subdirectories. Small make functions construct extra rules there. If the used make rules from the ocamldep call do not produce the desired effects for checks of prerequisites so far, I could try to convert the provided data to an other style of dependency specification. Such generated make rules would finally contain one useful command in each recipe. Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Replacing suffix rules in make scripts?
>> Can you get the impression from the mentioned error message examples >> that the desired software build prerequisites failed anyhow? > > Something fails in your situation, but without knowing the arguments to > the compiler, I don't know what. You could know also from the reduced information. Is it really easier for you to see the following data again? elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205/parsing_c> LANG=C make V=1 /usr/bin/ocamlc.opt -unsafe -I ../commons -I ../commons/ocamlextra -I ../globals -I ../parsing_cocci -c includes.mli File "includes.mli", line 38, characters 46-60: Error: Unbound module Ast_c make: *** [/home/elfring/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205/common_rules.make:6: includes.cmi] Error 2 Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Replacing suffix rules in make scripts?
> The command “ocamldep *.mli *.ml > .depend” was performed for > relevant subdirectories. > Unfortunately, this approach seems to be insufficient for the desired > safe integration of dependency information so far. How do you think about to work any more with dedicated files for each source file by pattern rules like it is described in the manual section “Generating prerequisites automatically”? https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Automatic-Prerequisites.html Would it make sense to split the data from the command “ocamldep” into smaller units? Do I stumble on unexpected software behaviour by the tool “GNU Make 4.2.1-1.7” on my openSUSE Tumbleweed system? Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Replacing suffix rules in make scripts?
>> I showed how I could stumble on open issues. > > No you didn't. I try then once more to help you to interpret the mentioned error message examples. The command “ocamldep *.mli *.ml > .depend” was performed for relevant subdirectories. Unfortunately, this approach seems to be insufficient for the desired safe integration of dependency information so far. > I don't know what are the arguments to the ocaml compiler. If you think in terms of the build system, you would know that this tool needs input files. Unfortunately, the current build scripts did not trigger the generation of the desired prerequisites for the command examples at the end. > What file are you trying to compile? The attempted data processing steps can not succeed when required files were not built before. If these dependencies will be fixed, then we can worry if an error message like “Unbound module Ast_c” can occur because of other reasons. Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Replacing suffix rules in make scripts?
>> I am curious on how a dependency for a software interface like >> “Visitor_ast0_types” >> should be expressed for so many source files in a consistent way. > > What problem are you trying to solve? I would like to achieve something more for the topics which were also registered in the issue tracker. > Why do the dependency specifications need improving? Examples: elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205/parsing_cocci> LANG=C make V=1 /usr/bin/ocamldep *.mli *.ml > .depend /usr/bin/ocamlc.opt … File "_none_", line 1: Error: Cannot find file flag_parsing_cocci.cmo make: *** [Makefile:67: cocci_parser.cma] Error 2 elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205/parsing_c> LANG=C make V=1 /usr/bin/ocamlc.opt … File "includes.mli", line 38, characters 46-60: Error: Unbound module Ast_c make: *** [/home/elfring/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205/common_rules.make:6: includes.cmi] Error 2 These messages indicate reasons why I am also fiddling with the build scripts for this software again. Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Replacing suffix rules in make scripts?
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > If you have changed things, then perhaps you have caused the problem? > > I have found an approach for the adjustment of affected build scripts > where I can improve the involved dependency specifications in a few > subdirectories on my own to some degree. > But I guess that a directory like “parsing_cocci” provides bigger development > challenges to make the dependencies safer there. > I am curious on how a dependency for a software interface like > “Visitor_ast0_types” > should be expressed for so many source files in a consistent way. What problem are you trying to solve? Why do the dependency specifications need improving? julia___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Replacing suffix rules in make scripts?
> If you have changed things, then perhaps you have caused the problem? I have found an approach for the adjustment of affected build scripts where I can improve the involved dependency specifications in a few subdirectories on my own to some degree. But I guess that a directory like “parsing_cocci” provides bigger development challenges to make the dependencies safer there. I am curious on how a dependency for a software interface like “Visitor_ast0_types” should be expressed for so many source files in a consistent way. Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Replacing suffix rules in make scripts?
> If you have changed things, then perhaps you have caused the problem? This is also another possibility in principle. It seems that I wonder again why some source files should be compiled without interface description files there. An other script variant showed the following result. elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205/globals> LANG=C make iteration.cmx V=1 My test command: /usr/bin/ocamlopt.opt -unsafe -I ../commons -I /home/elfring/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205/bundles/pcre/ -c flag.ml File "flag.ml", line 24, characters 17-36: Error: Unbound module Commands make: *** [Makefile:62: flag.cmx] Error 2 Can it be that the corresponding dependency specifications were incomplete anyhow in this make script for the direct use at such a place? Would you like to help any more to get these dependencies more consistent? Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Replacing suffix rules in make scripts?
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > So I get the impression that an other build approach will be safer there. > > How do you think about to add a dependency specification so that interface > > descriptions will be always compiled before the corresponding OCaml code? > > Hello, > > I have achieved another bit of progress with my attempt to replace suffix > rules > by pattern rules in some make scripts. > I stumbled on the next software development challenge as follows. > > > elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205> LANG=C make V=1 > … > make[6]: Entering directory > '/home/elfring/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205/globals' > /usr/bin/ocamlopt.opt -unsafe -I ../commons -I > /home/elfring/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205/bundles/pcre/ -c iteration.ml > File "iteration.ml", line 36, characters 4-28: > Error: Unbound module Flag > make[6]: *** > [/home/elfring/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205/common_rules.make:12: > iteration.cmx] Error 2 > … > > > * Do I overlook an “obvious” software dependency once more in this use case? > > * How should the relevant details be resolved here? If you have changed things, then perhaps you have caused the problem? julia > > Regards, > Markus > ___ > Cocci mailing list > Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr > https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci >___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Replacing suffix rules in make scripts?
> So I get the impression that an other build approach will be safer there. > How do you think about to add a dependency specification so that interface > descriptions will be always compiled before the corresponding OCaml code? Hello, I have achieved another bit of progress with my attempt to replace suffix rules by pattern rules in some make scripts. I stumbled on the next software development challenge as follows. elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205> LANG=C make V=1 … make[6]: Entering directory '/home/elfring/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205/globals' /usr/bin/ocamlopt.opt -unsafe -I ../commons -I /home/elfring/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205/bundles/pcre/ -c iteration.ml File "iteration.ml", line 36, characters 4-28: Error: Unbound module Flag make[6]: *** [/home/elfring/Projekte/Coccinelle/20160205/common_rules.make:12: iteration.cmx] Error 2 … * Do I overlook an “obvious” software dependency once more in this use case? * How should the relevant details be resolved here? Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
[Cocci] Replacing suffix rules in make scripts?
Hello, I have achieved a bit of progress with one experiment for build script adjustments. I would like to try further changes out. Unfortunately, I stumbled on an error message like the following from the program “GNU Make 4.2.1-1.7” then. … /usr/bin/ocamlopt.opt … File "cocci.ml", line 1: Error: Could not find the .cmi file for interface cocci.mli. make[3]: *** [Makefile:533: cocci.cmx] Error 2 … It seems that the following code is relevant in this use case. … .ml.cmo: $(OCAMLC_CMD) -c $< .mli.cmi: $(OCAMLC_CMD) -c $< .ml.cmx: $(OCAMLOPT_CMD) -c $< … Other documentation provides this information: “… Suffix rules cannot have any prerequisites of their own. …” So I get the impression that an other build approach will be safer there. How do you think about to add a dependency specification so that interface descriptions will be always compiled before the corresponding OCaml code? Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
