Hi, On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 at 15:19, Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 at 15:32, Christophe Lyon > <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 at 16:34, Simon Marchi <sim...@simark.ca> wrote: > > > > > > On 3/18/24 13:25, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > > > Well the rule to regenerate Makefile.in (eg in in opcodes/) is a bit > > > > more complex > > > > than just calling automake. IIUC it calls automake --foreign it any of > > > > *.m4 file from $(am__configure_deps) that is newer than Makefile.in > > > > (with an early exit in the loop), does nothing if Makefile.am or > > > > doc/local.mk are newer than Makefile.in, and then calls 'automake > > > > --foreign Makefile' > > > > > > The rules looks complex because they've been generated by automake, this > > > Makefile.in is not written by hand. And I guess automake has put > > > `--foreign` there because foreign is used in Makefile.am: > > Yes, I know :-) > > > > > > > > AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS = foreign no-dist > > > > > > But a simple call so `automake -f` (or `autoreconf -f`) just works, as > > > automake picks up the foreign option from AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS, so a human > > > or an external script who wants to regenerate things would probably just > > > use that. > > > > Indeed. I guess my concern is: if some change happens to > > Makefile.am/Makefile.in which would imply that 'autoreconf -f' would > > not work, how do we make sure autoregen.py (or whatever script) is > > updated accordingly? Or maybe whatever change is made to > > Makefile.am/Makefile.in, 'autoreconf -f' is supposed to handle it > > without additional flag? > > > I think I've just noticed a variant of this: if you look at > opcodes/Makefile.in, you can see that aclocal.m4 depends on > configure.ac (among others). So if configure.ac is updated, a > maintainer-mode rule in Makefile.in will call aclocal and regenerate > aclocal.m4. > > However, autoregen.py calls aclocal only if configure.ac contains > AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIRS, which is not the case here. > > That's probably a bug in opcode/configure.ac, but still the current > Makefile.in machinery would update aclocal.m4 as needed when > autoregen.py will not. > > I haven't audited all configure.ac but there are probably other > occurrences of this. >
Another discrepancy I've just noticed: if you look at libsframe/Makefile.am, you can see that ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS = -I .. -I ../config -I ../bfd, so if you run autoreconf -f, it will invoke aclocal with these flags (the same is performed by the aclocal.m4 regeneration rule in the Makefile), but autoregen.py won't run aclocal because configure.ac does not define AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIRS, and even if it did, it would only use -I../config I guess the same applies for several other subdirs. So in general how do we make sure autoregen.py uses the right flags? Or what prevents us from just using autoreconf -f? If that does not work because configure.ac/Makeline.am and others have bugs, maybe we should fix those bugs instead? which makes me think about Eric's reply: > `autoreconf -f` works fine in individual subdirectories, the problem > is that the top-level configure.ac doesn't use the AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS > macro to specify its subdirectories, but rather uses its own > hand-rolled method of specifying subdirectories that autoreconf > doesn't know about. This means that autoreconf won't automatically > recurse into all the necessary subdirectories by itself automatically, > and instead has to be run manually in each subdirectory separately. It's not clear to me if that "problem" is a bug, or a design decision we must take into account when writing tools to help regeneration? > Also the various subdirectories are inconsistent about whether they > have a rule for running it (autoreconf) from the Makefile or not, should that be considered a bug, and fixed? > which usually comes down to whether the subdirectory uses automake for > its Makefile or not (the top-level Makefile doesn't; it uses its own > weird autogen-based regeneration method instead, which means that it > misses out on all the built-in rules that automake would implicitly > generate, including ones related to build system regeneration). Thanks, Christophe > Christophe > > > > > > > > The bot I want to put in place would regenerate things as they are > > > > supposed to be, then build and run the testsuite to make sure that > > > > what is supposed to be committed would work (if the committer > > > > regenerates everything correctly) > > > > > > For your job, would it be fine to just force-regenerate everything and > > > ignore timestamps (just like the buildbot's autoregen job wants to do)? > > > It would waste a few cycles, but it would be much simpler. > > > > > Yes, that would achieve the purpose: be able to handle as many patches > > as possible in precommit-CI. > > And as described earlier, for binutils this currently means: > > autoregen > > confgure --enable-maintainer-mode > > make all (with a low -j value otherwise we have random build failures) > > and my proposal to workaround the problem with -j is to do > > make all-bfd all-libiberty regenerate -j1 > > make all -j XXX > > > > Another possibility would be a policy change in how patches are > > submitted, to require that they contain all the autogenerated files. > > > > > > > Simon
