How often does one really do a "make clean" ? Rather infrequently, as I only stumbled on this today. Perhaps I have missed the RM variable somewhere, as I see similar syntax in some of the tests/tcg/ Makefiles, but I don't see it being set here. My configure statement isn't terribly interesting, just enabling debug for an s390x target, and as such there's no RM variable in its output. I'll trust that Thomas will chime in with where it should have been. In the meantime, this does the trick for me. I didn't rebuild the image file after this change, because it didn't seem necessary. Let me know if that was a bad assumption, and I can submit one. Eric Farman (1): pc-bios/s390-ccw: Use rm command during make clean pc-bios/s390-ccw/Makefile | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 2.11.2
On 14.08.2017 22:44, Eric Farman wrote:
> How often does one really do a "make clean" ? Rather infrequently,
> as I only stumbled on this today.
>
> Perhaps I have missed the RM variable somewhere, as I see similar syntax
> in some of the tests/tcg/ Makefiles, but I don't see it being set here.
> My configure statement isn't terribly interesting, just enabling debug
> for an s390x target, and as such there's no RM variable in its output.
> I'll trust that Thomas will chime in with where it should have been.
> In the meantime, this does the trick for me.
RM is one of the variables that should be pre-initialized by Make, and
AFAIK should be used to increase portability (well, it's likely not
important for QEMU since we require a posix-shell like built environment
anyway).
According to the info page of Make, chapter "10.3 Variables Used by
Implicit Rules":
`RM'
Command to remove a file; default `rm -f'.
I've also checked it again and "make clean" works fine here (using GNU
Make 3.82). Which version of Make (and Linux distro) are you using?
Anyway, maybe I also simply missed something, so I'm certainly also fine
with the patch to revert it to "rm -f".
Thomas
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 07:02:10 +0200 Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: > On 14.08.2017 22:44, Eric Farman wrote: > > How often does one really do a "make clean" ? Rather infrequently, > > as I only stumbled on this today. > > > > Perhaps I have missed the RM variable somewhere, as I see similar syntax > > in some of the tests/tcg/ Makefiles, but I don't see it being set here. > > My configure statement isn't terribly interesting, just enabling debug > > for an s390x target, and as such there's no RM variable in its output. > > I'll trust that Thomas will chime in with where it should have been. > > In the meantime, this does the trick for me. > > RM is one of the variables that should be pre-initialized by Make, and > AFAIK should be used to increase portability (well, it's likely not > important for QEMU since we require a posix-shell like built environment > anyway). > > According to the info page of Make, chapter "10.3 Variables Used by > Implicit Rules": > > `RM' > Command to remove a file; default `rm -f'. > > I've also checked it again and "make clean" works fine here (using GNU > Make 3.82). Which version of Make (and Linux distro) are you using? Interesting. It fails for me with GNU Make 3.82 on my RHEL guest as well. > Anyway, maybe I also simply missed something, so I'm certainly also fine > with the patch to revert it to "rm -f". Given that other bios makefiles use rm -f as well, let's just change back until we figure out what's wrong.
On 15.08.2017 09:03, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 07:02:10 +0200 > Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 14.08.2017 22:44, Eric Farman wrote: >>> How often does one really do a "make clean" ? Rather infrequently, >>> as I only stumbled on this today. >>> >>> Perhaps I have missed the RM variable somewhere, as I see similar syntax >>> in some of the tests/tcg/ Makefiles, but I don't see it being set here. >>> My configure statement isn't terribly interesting, just enabling debug >>> for an s390x target, and as such there's no RM variable in its output. >>> I'll trust that Thomas will chime in with where it should have been. >>> In the meantime, this does the trick for me. >> >> RM is one of the variables that should be pre-initialized by Make, and >> AFAIK should be used to increase portability (well, it's likely not >> important for QEMU since we require a posix-shell like built environment >> anyway). >> >> According to the info page of Make, chapter "10.3 Variables Used by >> Implicit Rules": >> >> `RM' >> Command to remove a file; default `rm -f'. >> >> I've also checked it again and "make clean" works fine here (using GNU >> Make 3.82). Which version of Make (and Linux distro) are you using? > > Interesting. It fails for me with GNU Make 3.82 on my RHEL guest as > well. > >> Anyway, maybe I also simply missed something, so I'm certainly also fine >> with the patch to revert it to "rm -f". > > Given that other bios makefiles use rm -f as well, let's just change > back until we figure out what's wrong. I just discovered that it fails for me as well when I do "make clean" from the top directory. So far I was only doing "make clean" after doing a "cd pc-bios/s390-ccw" first, and that works fine. Weird. Something seems to unset the RM variable in our build system, but I fail to find the spot where this happens... Thomas
On 15.08.2017 10:01, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 15.08.2017 09:03, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 07:02:10 +0200 >> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> On 14.08.2017 22:44, Eric Farman wrote: >>>> How often does one really do a "make clean" ? Rather infrequently, >>>> as I only stumbled on this today. >>>> >>>> Perhaps I have missed the RM variable somewhere, as I see similar syntax >>>> in some of the tests/tcg/ Makefiles, but I don't see it being set here. >>>> My configure statement isn't terribly interesting, just enabling debug >>>> for an s390x target, and as such there's no RM variable in its output. >>>> I'll trust that Thomas will chime in with where it should have been. >>>> In the meantime, this does the trick for me. >>> >>> RM is one of the variables that should be pre-initialized by Make, and >>> AFAIK should be used to increase portability (well, it's likely not >>> important for QEMU since we require a posix-shell like built environment >>> anyway). >>> >>> According to the info page of Make, chapter "10.3 Variables Used by >>> Implicit Rules": >>> >>> `RM' >>> Command to remove a file; default `rm -f'. >>> >>> I've also checked it again and "make clean" works fine here (using GNU >>> Make 3.82). Which version of Make (and Linux distro) are you using? >> >> Interesting. It fails for me with GNU Make 3.82 on my RHEL guest as >> well. >> >>> Anyway, maybe I also simply missed something, so I'm certainly also fine >>> with the patch to revert it to "rm -f". >> >> Given that other bios makefiles use rm -f as well, let's just change >> back until we figure out what's wrong. > > I just discovered that it fails for me as well when I do "make clean" > from the top directory. So far I was only doing "make clean" after doing > a "cd pc-bios/s390-ccw" first, and that works fine. Weird. Something > seems to unset the RM variable in our build system, but I fail to find > the spot where this happens... Ok, just found it: It's this line in rules.mak: MAKEFLAGS += -rR The parameter -R disables the built-in variables, so RM can indeed not work here. Sorry, I wasn't aware of that setting yet, so your patch is indeed the right fix here (or we should maybe define RM in rules.mak, too). Thomas
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 10:26:18 +0200 Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: > On 15.08.2017 10:01, Thomas Huth wrote: > > On 15.08.2017 09:03, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 07:02:10 +0200 > >> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On 14.08.2017 22:44, Eric Farman wrote: > >>>> How often does one really do a "make clean" ? Rather infrequently, > >>>> as I only stumbled on this today. > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps I have missed the RM variable somewhere, as I see similar syntax > >>>> in some of the tests/tcg/ Makefiles, but I don't see it being set here. > >>>> My configure statement isn't terribly interesting, just enabling debug > >>>> for an s390x target, and as such there's no RM variable in its output. > >>>> I'll trust that Thomas will chime in with where it should have been. > >>>> In the meantime, this does the trick for me. > >>> > >>> RM is one of the variables that should be pre-initialized by Make, and > >>> AFAIK should be used to increase portability (well, it's likely not > >>> important for QEMU since we require a posix-shell like built environment > >>> anyway). > >>> > >>> According to the info page of Make, chapter "10.3 Variables Used by > >>> Implicit Rules": > >>> > >>> `RM' > >>> Command to remove a file; default `rm -f'. > >>> > >>> I've also checked it again and "make clean" works fine here (using GNU > >>> Make 3.82). Which version of Make (and Linux distro) are you using? > >> > >> Interesting. It fails for me with GNU Make 3.82 on my RHEL guest as > >> well. > >> > >>> Anyway, maybe I also simply missed something, so I'm certainly also fine > >>> with the patch to revert it to "rm -f". > >> > >> Given that other bios makefiles use rm -f as well, let's just change > >> back until we figure out what's wrong. > > > > I just discovered that it fails for me as well when I do "make clean" > > from the top directory. So far I was only doing "make clean" after doing > > a "cd pc-bios/s390-ccw" first, and that works fine. Weird. Something > > seems to unset the RM variable in our build system, but I fail to find > > the spot where this happens... > > Ok, just found it: It's this line in rules.mak: > > MAKEFLAGS += -rR > > The parameter -R disables the built-in variables, so RM can indeed not > work here. Sorry, I wasn't aware of that setting yet, so your patch is > indeed the right fix here (or we should maybe define RM in rules.mak, too). The other users are all in tests/tcg/. Would there be value in using the built-in variables generally? (Well, value that outweighs having to go through the qemu build system...)
On 15.08.2017 10:32, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 10:26:18 +0200 > Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: [...] >> The parameter -R disables the built-in variables, so RM can indeed not >> work here. Sorry, I wasn't aware of that setting yet, so your patch is >> indeed the right fix here (or we should maybe define RM in rules.mak, too). > > The other users are all in tests/tcg/. > > Would there be value in using the built-in variables generally? (Well, > value that outweighs having to go through the qemu build system...) There are some non-posix shells where "rm -f" does not work (e.g. COMMAND.COM on Windows), and this is where $(RM) is really useful. But since we require a posix-style built environment anyway, it's not that important for the QEMU build system. OTOH, $(RM) is a standard Make variable, so other people might step into this trap as well - so it's maybe better to define it in rules.mak to avoid future confusion? Thomas
On 08/15/2017 04:26 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 15.08.2017 10:01, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 15.08.2017 09:03, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 07:02:10 +0200 >>> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 14.08.2017 22:44, Eric Farman wrote: >>>>> How often does one really do a "make clean" ? Rather infrequently, >>>>> as I only stumbled on this today. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps I have missed the RM variable somewhere, as I see similar syntax >>>>> in some of the tests/tcg/ Makefiles, but I don't see it being set here. >>>>> My configure statement isn't terribly interesting, just enabling debug >>>>> for an s390x target, and as such there's no RM variable in its output. >>>>> I'll trust that Thomas will chime in with where it should have been. >>>>> In the meantime, this does the trick for me. >>>> >>>> RM is one of the variables that should be pre-initialized by Make, and >>>> AFAIK should be used to increase portability (well, it's likely not >>>> important for QEMU since we require a posix-shell like built environment >>>> anyway). >>>> >>>> According to the info page of Make, chapter "10.3 Variables Used by >>>> Implicit Rules": >>>> >>>> `RM' >>>> Command to remove a file; default `rm -f'. >>>> >>>> I've also checked it again and "make clean" works fine here (using GNU >>>> Make 3.82). Which version of Make (and Linux distro) are you using? Not that it matters now, but make 4.1 on F24 >>> >>> Interesting. It fails for me with GNU Make 3.82 on my RHEL guest as >>> well. >>> >>>> Anyway, maybe I also simply missed something, so I'm certainly also fine >>>> with the patch to revert it to "rm -f". >>> >>> Given that other bios makefiles use rm -f as well, let's just change >>> back until we figure out what's wrong. >> >> I just discovered that it fails for me as well when I do "make clean" >> from the top directory. So far I was only doing "make clean" after doing >> a "cd pc-bios/s390-ccw" first, and that works fine. Weird. Something >> seems to unset the RM variable in our build system, but I fail to find >> the spot where this happens... > > Ok, just found it: It's this line in rules.mak: > > MAKEFLAGS += -rR > > The parameter -R disables the built-in variables, so RM can indeed not > work here. Sorry, I wasn't aware of that setting yet, so your patch is > indeed the right fix here (or we should maybe define RM in rules.mak, too). Excellent find, Thomas! I was not aware of that either. Thanks to both you and Cornelia for this. - Eric
On 14 August 2017 at 21:44, Eric Farman <farman@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > How often does one really do a "make clean" ? Rather infrequently, > as I only stumbled on this today. FWIW, one of my standard pre-merge build tests does a "make clean" and then a make (mostly as a check that we do build from clean as well as incrementally). Not sure why it didn't catch this... thanks -- PMM
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 11:00:51 +0100 Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote: > On 14 August 2017 at 21:44, Eric Farman <farman@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > How often does one really do a "make clean" ? Rather infrequently, > > as I only stumbled on this today. > > FWIW, one of my standard pre-merge build tests does a > "make clean" and then a make (mostly as a check that we > do build from clean as well as incrementally). Not sure > why it didn't catch this... Probably because you don't build on s390x... I'll add it to my workflow, though.
On 15 August 2017 at 12:07, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 11:00:51 +0100 > Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote: > >> On 14 August 2017 at 21:44, Eric Farman <farman@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> > How often does one really do a "make clean" ? Rather infrequently, >> > as I only stumbled on this today. >> >> FWIW, one of my standard pre-merge build tests does a >> "make clean" and then a make (mostly as a check that we >> do build from clean as well as incrementally). Not sure >> why it didn't catch this... > > Probably because you don't build on s390x... I do, but not with a 'make clean' step :-) thanks -- PMM
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.