From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ivan Orlov Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:58:26 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Makefile: clean auto-generated *.c files properly In-Reply-To: <20240422-57f6d7d8e00b7b11cf364cb1@orel> References: <20240401213438.590209-1-ivan.orlov0322@gmail.com> <20240401213438.590209-2-ivan.orlov0322@gmail.com> <20240422-57f6d7d8e00b7b11cf364cb1@orel> Message-ID: <420f589f-78d2-4f16-a0ae-850488b5279c@gmail.com> List-Id: To: opensbi@lists.infradead.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/22/24 16:19, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 10:34:36PM +0100, Ivan Orlov wrote: >> Currently, `make clean` doesn't remove auto-generated .c files in the >> `build/` directory. It means that we don't have a reliable way of >> regenerating these files except from removing the `build/` directory >> manually. >> >> Update the `clean` target in order to remove these files as well. >> >> In the discussion of the "[PATCH v2 3/5] Makefile: clean '.c' files >> generated by carray", Andrew Jones suggested >> placing the auto-generated .c files into the `build/generated/` folder. >> However, I believe it may not be necessary as in fact all of the files >> in `build/` are auto-generated. > > Since the Makefile enforces that the build dir is not the same as the > source dir and the only C files we currently generate are carray files, > then OK. I still think it would be nice to be more specific about what > we clean, though. > Hi Andrew, Thank you very much for the review! I see a few approaches how we could make the CArray-generated files cleaning more clear. I believe we could either put all of the CArray-generated files into a subdirectory of `build/` (as you suggested) or add a suffix to a filename of an auto-generated .c file (for instance, sbi_unit_tests.carray -> sbi_unit_tests_carray.c, and the pattern for `make clean` would be like "rm -rf build/*_carray.c"). The former would probably need significant update of the Makefile. The latter, on the other hand, seems more flaky... What do you think of that? -- Kind regards, Ivan Orlov