[bug #61042] Enhance implicit rule search logging

[Dmitry Goncharov]

Follow-up Comment #12, bug #61042 (project make):

> I used it because I wanted to mark that data member as being "private" in
the sense that it shouldn't be used directly by other parts of the code;
instead the get_rule_defn() function should always be called to retrieve that
value.

Good to know. i'll follow this convention.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/

[bug #61042] Enhance implicit rule search logging

[Paul D. Smith]

Follow-up Comment #11, bug #61042 (project make):

I used it because I wanted to mark that data member as being "private" in the
sense that it shouldn't be used directly by other parts of the code; instead
the get_rule_defn() function should always be called to retrieve that value.

If we were using C++ many things would be a lot cleaner :).

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/

[bug #61042] Enhance implicit rule search logging

[Dmitry Goncharov]

Follow-up Comment #10, bug #61042 (project make):

Thank you, Paul.

Does the leading underscore in rule->_defn has a special meaning, follow gnu
make convention or similar?

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/

[bug #61042] Enhance implicit rule search logging

[Paul D. Smith]

Update of bug #61042 (project make):

  Status:None => Fixed  
 Assigned to:None => psmith 
 Open/Closed:Open => Closed 
   Fixed Release:None => SCM

___

Follow-up Comment #9:

Applied, with minor fixups.  Thanks Dmitry!

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/

[bug #61042] Enhance implicit rule search logging

[Dmitry Goncharov]

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #61042 (project make):

Merged master to my branch and resolved the conflict in patch
 sv_61042_implicit_rule_search_logging2.diff.

The same change is also available here 
g...@github.com:dgoncharov/make.git
on branch
sv61042_enhance_implicit_search_logging.

(file #52115)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: sv_61042_implicit_rule_search_logging2.diff Size:12 KB
   




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/

[bug #61042] Enhance implicit rule search logging

[Dmitry Goncharov]

Follow-up Comment #7, bug #61042 (project make):

There are 2 situations when implicit rule lookup takes this short cut.

1.

hello.tsk: hello.o
%.tsk: %.o; touch $@


and

2.

hello.tsk:
%.tsk: %.o; touch $@
hello.o:



There are 2 if branches in implicit.c

This branch handles the case 1 described above.


for (expl_d = file->deps; expl_d != 0; expl_d = expl_d->next)
if (streq (dep_name (expl_d), d->name))
  break;
if (expl_d != 0)
{
  (pat++)->name = d->name;
  continue;
}


and

This branch handles the case 2 described above.



f = lookup_file (d->name);
if (f /* || ((!dep->changed || check_lastslash) */
  || file_exists_p (d->name))
{
  (pat++)->name = d->name;
  continue;
}


This patch has both if branches combined to handle both cases, because the
handling is the same.
The conflict was introduced by this fix to set f->is_explicit.
Let me merge master onto my branch and resubmit.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/

[bug #61042] Enhance implicit rule search logging

[Paul D. Smith]

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #61042 (project make):

I see that I missed a part of the original patch.  Hm, there are a number of
recent changes to this section of code which are in conflict and the way I
originally resolved this was incorrect.  I'll need to figure out what's going
on.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/

[bug #61042] Enhance implicit rule search logging

[Paul D. Smith]

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #61042 (project make):

Actually that change causes a number of regression tests to fail with
incorrect output so I removed it.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/

[bug #61042] Enhance implicit rule search logging

[Paul D. Smith]

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #61042 (project make):

Dmitry I'm not sure about this change:


@@ -744,15 +752,9 @@ pattern_search (struct file *file, int archive,
   /* If this prereq is also explicitly mentioned for FILE,
  skip all tests below since it must be built no matter
  which implicit rule we choose. */
-
   for (expl_d = file->deps; expl_d != 0; expl_d =
expl_d->next)
 if (streq (dep_name (expl_d), d->name))
   break;
-  if (expl_d != 0)
-{
-  (pat++)->name = d->name;
-  continue;
-}
 
   /* The DEP->changed flag says that this dependency resides
  in a nonexistent directory.  So we normally can skip


Why are we removing this shortcut here?  It seems like we're paying a cost
everywhere to get better output when debugging is enabled...?  Or is there
some correctness reason to remove this?

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/

[bug #61042] Enhance implicit rule search logging

[Dmitry Goncharov]

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #61042 (project make):

Another scenario that i noticed, when this enhanced logging helps, is when the
source file is present, but vpath is incorrect.
E.g. vpath %.cpp %.c $(srcdir).
Again make ignores the rule, because it cannot find the source file, but gives
no indication of why it ignores the rule. The new logging prints "Not found
''.".

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/

[bug #61042] Enhance implicit rule search logging

[Dmitry Goncharov]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #61042 (project make):

sv_61042_reuse_rule_name_for_dash_p.diff reuses rule->name for printing the db
under -p.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/

[bug #61042] Enhance implicit rule search logging

[Dmitry Goncharov]

Additional Item Attachment, bug #61042 (project make):

File name: sv_61042_reuse_rule_name_for_dash_p.diff Size:0 KB
   




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/

[bug #61042] Enhance implicit rule search logging

[Dmitry Goncharov]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #61042 (project make):

sv_61042_implicit_rule_search_logging.diff has the following

Changes in the implicit rule search logging:
1. The messages which refer to a rule print the first line
(the targets and prerequisites) of the rule.
2. A new message tells when a rule is rejected, along with the reason.
3. The 'Looking for an implicit rule...' message is printed for every
prerequisite, rather than the top level target only.
4. "Trying harder" message is printed, when intermediate prerequisites are
allowed.
5. The 'No rule found...' and 'Found implicit rule...' messages are printed
for
every prerequisite, rather than the top level target only.
6. "Ought to exist...", "Found..." or "Not found..." message is printed for
each prerequisite.

This is the diagnostics of the same example above with enhanced logging.

$ ~/src/gmake/make/l64/make -R --debug=implicit hello.o |tail +9
Updating goal targets
 File 'hello.o' does not exist.
 Looking for an implicit rule for 'hello.o'.
 Trying pattern rule '%.o: %.c' with stem 'hello'.
 Trying implicit prerequisite 'hello.c'.
 Not found 'hello.c'.
 Trying harder.
 Trying pattern rule '%.o: %.c' with stem 'hello'.
 Trying implicit prerequisite 'hello.c'.
 Looking for a rule with intermediate file 'hello.c'.
  Avoiding implicit rule recursion for rule '%.o: %.c'.
  No implicit rule found for 'hello.c'.
 Rejecting rule '%.o: %.c' due to impossible prerequisite 'hello.c'.
 No implicit rule found for 'hello.o'.
Must remake target 'hello.o'.
make: *** No rule to make target 'hello.o'.  Stop.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/

[bug #61042] Enhance implicit rule search logging

[Dmitry Goncharov]

Additional Item Attachment, bug #61042 (project make):

File name: sv_61042_implicit_rule_search_logging.diff Size:13 KB
   




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/

[bug #61042] Enhance implicit rule search logging

[Dmitry Goncharov]

URL:
  

 Summary: Enhance implicit rule search logging
 Project: make
Submitted by: dgoncharov
Submitted on: Sun 15 Aug 2021 04:11:25 AM UTC
Severity: 3 - Normal
  Item Group: Enhancement
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
   Component Version: SCM
Operating System: Any
   Fixed Release: None
   Triage Status: None

___

Details:

Enhance implicit search logging.

Consider this rule
%.o: %.c; $(CC) -o $@ -c $<

When the user wants to make hello.o and hello.c is missing, make gives the
following diagnostics.

$ ls
makefile
$ cat makefile
%.o: %.c; $(CC) -o $@ -c $<
$ ~/src/gmake/make/m64/make -R --debug=implicit hello.o |tail +9
Updating goal targets
 File 'hello.o' does not exist.
 Looking for an implicit rule for 'hello.o'.
 Trying pattern rule with stem 'hello'.
 Trying implicit prerequisite 'hello.c'.
 Trying pattern rule with stem 'hello'.
 Trying implicit prerequisite 'hello.c'.
 Looking for a rule with intermediate file 'hello.c'.
  Avoiding implicit rule recursion.
 No implicit rule found for 'hello.o'.
Must remake target 'hello.o'.
make: *** No rule to make target 'hello.o'.  Stop.
$

The bottom line in this diagnostics is the "No rule found" message.
While the issue is that hello.c is missing.
And the user stares at the makefile and says
"How cannot make find the rule? Here it is."

Preferably make should tell which rule it is trying and why it is rejecting
it
and which prerequisite make is trying and what the outcome is.




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/