redo is a competitor to the long-lived, but sadly imperfect, make
program. There are many such competitors, because many people over the
years have been dissatisfied with make's limitations. However, of all the
replacements I've seen, only redo captures the essential simplicity and
flexibility of make, while avoiding its flaws. To my great surprise, it
manages to do this while being simultaneously simpler than make, more
flexible than make, and more powerful than make.
Although I wrote redo and I would love to take credit for it, the magical simplicity and flexibility comes because I copied verbatim a design by Daniel J. Bernstein (creator of qmail and djbdns, among many other useful things). He posted some very terse notes on his web site at one point (there is no date) with the unassuming title, "Rebuilding target files when source files have changed." Those notes are enough information to understand how the system is supposed to work; unfortunately there's no code to go with it. I get the impression that the hypothetical "djb redo" is incomplete and Bernstein doesn't yet consider it ready for the real world.
I was led to that particular page by random chance from a link on The djb way, by Wayne Marshall.
After I found out about djb redo, I searched the Internet for any sign that other people had discovered what I had: a hidden, unimplemented gem of brilliant code design. I found only one interesting link: Alan Grosskurth, whose Master's thesis at the University of Waterloo was about top-down software rebuilding, that is, djb redo. He wrote his own (admittedly slow) implementation in about 250 lines of shell script.
If you've ever thought about rewriting GNU make from scratch, the idea of doing it in 250 lines of shell script probably didn't occur to you. redo is so simple that it's actually possible. For testing, I actually wrote an even more minimal version, which always rebuilds everything instead of checking dependencies, in 150 lines of shell (about 3 kbytes).
The design is simply that good.
My implementation of redo is called redo for the same reason that there
are 75 different versions of make that are all called make. It's somehow
easier that way. Hopefully it will turn out to be compatible with the other
implementations, should there be any.
My extremely minimal implementation, called do, is in the minimal/
directory of this repository.
(Want to discuss redo? See the bottom of this file for information about our mailing list.)
My version of redo was written without ever seeing redo code by Bernstein or Grosskurth, so I own the entire copyright. It's distributed under the GNU LGPL version 2. You can find a copy of it in the file called LICENSE.
minimal/do is in the public domain so that it's even easier to include inside your own projects for people who don't have a copy of redo.
The theory behind redo is almost magical: it can do everything make can
do, only the implementation is vastly simpler, the syntax is cleaner, and you
can do even more flexible things without resorting to ugly hacks. Also, you
get all the speed of non-recursive make (only check dependencies once per
run) combined with all the cleanliness of recursive make (you don't have
code from one module stomping on code from another module).
(Disclaimer: my current implementation is not as fast as make for some
things, because it's written in python. Eventually I'll rewrite it an C and
it'll be very, very fast.)
The easiest way to show it is with an example.
Create a file called default.o.do:
redo-ifchange $2.c
gcc -MD -MF $2.d -c -o $3 $2.c
read DEPS <$2.d
redo-ifchange ${DEPS#*:}
Create a file called myprog.do:
DEPS="a.o b.o"
redo-ifchange $DEPS
gcc -o $3 $DEPS
Of course, you'll also have to create a.c and b.c, the C language
source files that you want to build to create your application.
In a.c:
#include <stdio.h>
#include "b.h"
int main() { printf(bstr); }
In b.h:
extern char *bstr;
In b.c: char *bstr = "hello, world!\n";
Now you simply run:
$ redo myprog
And it says:
redo myprog
redo a.o
redo b.o
Now try this:
$ touch b.h
$ redo myprog
Sure enough, it says:
redo myprog
redo a.o
Did you catch the shell incantation in default.o.do where it generates
the autodependencies? The filename default.o.do means "run this script to
generate a .o file unless there's a more specific whatever.o.do script that
applies."
The key thing to understand about redo is that declaring a dependency is just
another shell command. The redo-ifchange command means, "build each of my
arguments. If any of them or their dependencies ever change, then I need to
run the current script over again."
Dependencies are tracked in a persistent .redo database so that redo can
check them later. If a file needs to be rebuilt, it re-executes the
whatever.do script and regenerates the dependencies. If a file doesn't
need to be rebuilt, redo can calculate that just using its persistent
.redo database, without re-running the script. And it can do that check
just once right at the start of your project build.
But best of all, as you can see in default.o.do, you can declare a
dependency after building the program. In C, you get your best dependency
information by trying to actually build, since that's how you find out which
headers you need. redo is based on the following simple insight:
you don't actually
care what the dependencies are before you build the target; if the target
doesn't exist, you obviously need to build it. Then, the build script
itself can provide the dependency information however it wants; unlike in
make, you don't need a special dependency syntax at all. You can even
declare some of your dependencies after building, which makes C-style
autodependencies much simpler.
(GNU make supports putting some of your dependencies in include files, and
auto-reloading those include files if they change. But this is very
confusing - the program flow through a Makefile is hard to trace already,
and even harder if it restarts randomly from the beginning when a file
changes. With redo, you can just read the script from top to bottom. A
redo-ifchange call is like calling a function, which you can also read
from top to bottom.)
A lot of build systems that try to replace make do it by trying to provide a lot of predefined rules. For example, one build system I know includes default rules that can build C++ programs on Visual C++ or gcc, cross-compiled or not cross-compiled, and so on. Other build systems are specific to ruby programs, or python programs, or Java or .Net programs.
redo isn't like those systems; it's more like make. It doesn't know anything about your system or the language your program is written in.
The good news is: redo will work with any programming language with about equal difficulty. The bad news is: you might have to fill in more details than you would if you just use ANT to compile a Java program.
So the short version is: cross-platform builds are about equally easy in make and redo. It's not any easier, but it's not any harder.
FIXME: Tools like automake are really just collections of Makefile rules so you don't have to write the same ones over and over. In theory, someone could write an automake-like tool for redo, and you could use that.
FIXME: Probably under cygwin. But it hasn't been tested, so no.
If I were going to port redo to Windows in a "native" way, I might grab the source code to a posix shell (like the one in MSYS) and link it directly into redo.
make also doesn't really run on Windows (unless you use
MSYS or Cygwin or something like that). There are versions
of make that do - like Microsoft's version - but their
syntax is horrifically different from one vendor to
another, so you might as well just be writing for a
vendor-specific tool.
At least redo is simple enough that, theoretically, one day, I can imagine it being cross platform.
One interesting project that has appeared recently is busybox-w32 (https://github.com/pclouds/busybox-w32). It's a port of busybox to win32 that includes a mostly POSIX shell (ash) and a bunch of standard Unix utilities. This might be enough to get your redo scripts working on a win32 platform without having to install a bunch of stuff. But all of this needs more experimentation.
One of my favourite features of redo is that it doesn't add any new syntax; the syntax of redo is exactly the syntax of sh... because sh is the program interpreting your .do file.
Also, it's surprisingly useful to have each build script in its own file; that way, you can declare a dependency on just that one build script instead of the entire Makefile, and you won't have to rebuild everything just because of a one-line Makefile change. (Some build tools avoid that same problem by tracking which variables and commands were used to do the build. But that's more complex, more error prone, and slower.)
See djb's Target files depend on build scripts article for more information.
However, if you really want to, you can simply create a default.do that looks something like this:
case $1 in
*.o) ...compile a .o file... ;;
myprog) ...link a program... ;;
*) echo "no rule to build '$1'" >&2; exit 1 ;;
esac
Basically, default.do is the equivalent of a central Makefile in make. As of recent versions of redo, you can use either a single toplevel default.do (which catches requests for files anywhere in the project that don't have their own .do files) or one per directory, or any combination of the above. And you can put some of your targets in default.do and some of them in their own files. Lay it out in whatever way makes sense to you.
One more thing: if you put all your build rules in a single default.do, you'll soon discover that changing anything in that default.do will cause all your targets to rebuilt - because their .do file has changed. This is technically correct, but you might find it annoying. To work around it, try making your default.do look like this:
. ./default.od
And then put the above case statement in default.od
instead. Since you didn't redo-ifchange default.od,
changes to default.od won't cause everything to rebuild.
Yes! At first, having a bunch of .do files in each directory feels like a bit of a nuisance, but once you get used to it, it's actually pretty convenient; a simple 'ls' will show you which things you might want to redo in any given directory.
Here's a chunk of my .dircolors.conf:
.do 00;35
*Makefile 00;35
.o 00;30;1
.pyc 00;30;1
*~ 00;30;1
.tmp 00;30;1
To activate it, you can add a line like this to your .bashrc:
eval `dircolors $HOME/.dircolors.conf`
NOTE: These definitions have changed since the earliest (pre-0.10) versions of redo. The new definitions match what djb's original redo implementation did.
$1 is the name of the target file.
$2 is the basename of the target, minus the extension, if any.
$3 is the name of a temporary file that will be renamed to the target filename atomically if your .do file returns a zero (success) exit code.
In a file called chicken.a.b.c.do that builds a file called
chicken.a.b.c, $1 and $2 are chicken.a.b.c, and $3 is a
temporary name like chicken.a.b.c.tmp. You might have expected
$2 to be just chicken, but that's not possible, because
redo doesn't know which portion of the filename is the
"extension." Is it .c, .b.c, or .a.b.c?
.do files starting with default. are special; they can
build any target ending with the given extension. So let's
say we have a file named default.c.do building a file
called chicken.a.b.c. $1 is chicken.a.b.c, $2 is chicken.a.b,
and $3 is a temporary name like chicken.a.b.c.tmp.
You should use $1 and $2 only in constructing input filenames and dependencies; never modify the file named by $1 in your script. Only ever write to the file named by $3. That way redo can guarantee proper dependency management and atomicity. (For convenience, you can write to stdout instead of $3 if you want.)
For example, you could compile a .c file into a .o file
like this, from a script named default.o.do:
redo-ifchange $2.c
gcc -o $3 -c $2.c
That sounds tempting and easy, but one downside would be lack of backward compatibility with djb's original redo design.
Longer names aren't necessarily better. Learning the meanings of the three numbers doesn't take long, and over time, those extra few keystrokes can add up. And remember that Makefiles and perl have had strange one-character variable names for a long time. It's not at all clear that removing them is an improvement.
As with make, stdin is not redirected. You're probably better off not using it, though, because especially with parallel builds, it might not do anything useful. We might change this behaviour someday since it's such a terrible idea for .do scripts to read from stdin.
As with make, stderr is also not redirected. You can use it to print status messages as your build proceeds. (Eventually, we might want to capture stderr so it's easier to look at the results of parallel builds, but this is tricky to do in a user-friendly way.)
Redo treats stdout specially: it redirects it to point at
$3 (see previous question). That is, if your .do file
writes to stdout, then the data it writes ends up in the
output file. Thus, a really simple chicken.do file that
contains only this:
echo hello world
will correctly, and atomically, generate an output file
named chicken only if the echo command succeeds.
Yes, it is. It's unlike what almost any other program does, especially make, and it's very easy to make a mistake. For example, if you write in your script:
echo "Hello world"
it will go to the target file rather than to the screen.
A more common mistake is to run a program that writes to stdout by accident as it runs. When you do that, you'll produce your target on $3, but it might be intermingled with junk you wrote to stdout. redo is pretty good about catching this mistake, and it'll print a message like this:
redo zot.do wrote to stdout *and* created $3.
redo ...you should write status messages to stderr, not stdout.
redo zot: exit code 207
Despite the disadvantages, though, automatically capturing stdout does make certain kinds of .do scripts really elegant. The "simplest possible .do file" can be very short. For example, here's one that produces a sub-list from a list:
redo-ifchange filelist
grep ^src/ filelist
redo's simplicity is an attempt to capture the "Zen of Unix," which has a lot to do with concepts like pipelines and stdout. Why should every program have to implement its own -o (output filename) option when the shell already has a redirection operator? Maybe if redo gets more popular, more programs in the world will be able to be even simpler than they are today.
By the way, if you're running some programs that might misbehave and write garbage to stdout instead of stderr (Informational/status messages always belong on stderr, not stdout! Fix your programs!), then just add this line to the top of your .do script:
exec >&2
That will redirect your stdout to stderr, so it works more like you expect.
Not currently. There's nothing fundamentally preventing us from allowing it. However, it seems easier to reason about your build process if you aren't auto-generating your build scripts on the fly.
This might change someday.
No. We include a very short and simple shell script
called do in the minimal/ subdirectory of the redo project. do is like
redo (and it works with the same *.do scripts), except it doesn't
understand dependencies; it just always rebuilds everything from the top.
You can include do with your program to make it so non-users of redo can
still build your program. Someone who wants to hack on your program will
probably go crazy unless they have a copy of redo though.
Actually, redo itself isn't so big, so for large projects where it
matters, you could just include it with your project.
At the toplevel of your project, redo creates a directory
named .redo. That directory contains a sqlite3 database
with dependency information.
The format of the .redo directory is undocumented because
it may change at any time. Maybe it will turn out that we
can do something simpler than sqlite3. If you really need to make a
tool that pokes around in there, please ask on the mailing
list if we can standardize something for you.
Well, yes. Sort of. I think people underestimate how "lite" sqlite really is:
root root 573376 2010-10-20 09:55 /usr/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6
573k for a complete and very fast and transactional SQL database. For comparison, libdb is:
root root 1256548 2008-09-13 03:23 /usr/lib/libdb-4.6.so
...more than twice as big, and it doesn't even have an SQL parser in it! Or if you want to be really horrified:
root root 1995612 2009-02-03 13:54 /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.15.0.0
The mysql client library is two megs, and it doesn't even have a database server in it! People who think SQL databases are automatically bloated and gross have not yet actually experienced the joys of sqlite. SQL has a well-deserved bad reputation, but sqlite is another story entirely. It's excellent, and much simpler and better written than you'd expect.
But still, I'm pretty sure it's not very "djbish" to use a general-purpose database, especially one that has a SQL parser in it. (One of the great things about redo's design is that it doesn't ever need to parse anything, so a SQL parser is a bit embarrassing.)
I'm pretty sure djb never would have done it that way. However, I don't think we can reach the performance we want with dependency/build/lock information stored in plain text files; among other things, that results in too much fstat/open activity, which is slow in general, and even slower if you want to run on Windows. That leads us to a binary database, and if the binary database isn't sqlite or libdb or something, that means we have to implement our own data structures. Which is probably what djb would do, of course, but I'm just not convinced that I can do a better (or even a smaller) job of it than the sqlite guys did.
Most of the state database stuff has been isolated in state.py. If you're feeling brave, you can try to implement your own better state database, with or without sqlite.
It is almost certainly possible to do it much more nicely than I have, so if you do, please send it in!
The obvious way to write a list of dependencies might be something like this:
for d in *.c; do
redo-ifchange ${d%.c}.o
done
But it turns out that's very non-optimal. First of all, it forces all your dependencies to be built in order (redo-ifchange doesn't return until it has finished building), which makes -j parallelism a lot less useful. And secondly, it forks and execs redo-ifchange over and over, which can waste CPU time unnecessarily.
A better way is something like this:
for d in *.c; do
echo ${d%.c}.o
done |
xargs redo-ifchange
That only runs redo-ifchange once (or maybe a few times, if there are really a lot of dependencies and xargs has to split it up), which saves fork/exec time and allows for parallelism.
For example, running ./configure creates a bunch of files including config.h, and config.h might or might not change from one run to the next. We don't want to rebuild everything that depends on config.h if config.h is identical.
With make, which makes build decisions based on timestamps, you would
simply have the ./configure script write to config.h.new, then only
overwrite config.h with that if the two files are different.
However, that's a bit tedious.
With redo, there's an easier way. You can have a
config.do script that looks like this:
redo-ifchange autogen.sh *.ac
./autogen.sh
./configure
cat config.h configure Makefile | redo-stamp
Now any of your other .do files can depend on a target called
config. config gets rebuilt automatically if any of
your autoconf input files are changed (or if someone does
redo config to force it). But because of the call to
redo-stamp, config is only considered to have changed if
the contents of config.h, configure, or Makefile are
different than they were before.
(Note that you might actually want to break this .do up into a few phases: for example, one that runs aclocal, one that runs autoconf, and one that runs ./configure. That way your build can always do the minimum amount of work necessary.)
It's intentionally undocumented because you shouldn't need to care and it might change at any time. But trust me, it's not the slow part of your build, and you'll never accidentally get a hash collision.
Some build systems keep a checksum of target files and rebuild dependents only when the target changes. This is appealing in some cases; for example, with ./configure generating config.h, it could just go ahead and generate config.h; the build system would be smart enough to rebuild or not rebuild dependencies automatically. This keeps build scripts simple and gets rid of the need for people to re-implement file comparison over and over in every project or for multiple files in the same project.
There are disadvantages to using checksums for everything automatically, however:
-
Building stuff unnecessarily is much less dangerous than not building stuff that should be built. Checksums aren't perfect (think of zero-byte output files); using checksums will cause more builds to be skipped by default, which is very dangerous.
-
It makes it hard to force things to rebuild when you know you absolutely want that. (With timestamps, you can just
touch filenameto rebuild everything that depends onfilename.) -
Targets that are just used for aggregation (ie. they don't produce any output of their own) would always have the same checksum - the checksum of a zero-byte file - which causes confusing results.
-
Calculating checksums for every output file adds time to the build, even if you don't need that feature.
-
Building stuff unnecessarily and then stamping it is much slower than just not building it in the first place, so for almost every use of redo-stamp, it's not the right solution anyway.
-
To steal a line from the Zen of Python: explicit is better than implicit. Making people think about when they're using the stamp feature - knowing that it's slow and a little annoying to do - will help people design better build scripts that depend on this feature as little as possible.
-
djb's (as yet unreleased) version of redo doesn't implement checksums, so doing that would produce an incompatible implementation. With redo-stamp and redo-always being separate programs, you can simply choose not to use them if you want to keep maximum compatibility for the future.
-
Bonus: the redo-stamp algorithm is interchangeable. You don't have to stamp the target file or the source files or anything in particular; you can stamp any data you want, including the output of
lsor the content of a web page. We could never have made things like that implicit anyway, so some form of explicit redo-stamp would always have been needed, and then we'd have to explain when to use the explicit one and when to use the implicit one.
Thus, we made the decision to only use checksums for
targets that explicitly call redo-stamp (see previous
question).
I suggest actually trying it out to see how it feels for you. For myself, before there was redo-stamp and redo-always, a few types of problems (in particular, depending on a list of which files exist and which don't) were really annoying, and I definitely felt it. Adding redo-stamp and redo-always work the way they do made the pain disappear, so I stopped changing things.
When you run make target, make first checks the
dependencies of target; if they've changed, then it
rebuilds target. Otherwise it does nothing.
redo is a little different. It splits the build into two
steps. redo target is the second step; if you run that
at the command line, it just runs the .do file, whether it
needs it or not.
If you really want to only rebuild targets that have
changed, you can run redo-ifchange target instead.
The reasons I like this arrangement come down to semantics:
-
"make target" implies that if target exists, you're done; conversely, "redo target" in English implies you really want to redo it, not just sit around.
-
If this weren't the rule,
redoandredo-ifchangewould mean the same thing, which seems rather confusing. -
If
redocould refuse to run a .do script, you would have no easy one-line way to force a particular target to be rebuilt. You'd have to remove the target and then redo it, which is more typing. On the other hand, nobody actually types "redo foo.o" if they honestly think foo.o doesn't need rebuilding. -
For "contentless" targets like "test" or "clean", it would be extremely confusing if they refused to run just because they ran successfully last time.
In make, things get complicated because it doesn't differentiate between these two modes. Makefile rules with no dependencies run every time, unless the target exists, in which case they run never, unless the target is marked ".PHONY", in which case they run every time. But targets that do have dependencies follow totally different rules. And all this is needed because there's no way to tell make, "Listen, I just really want you to run the rules for this target right now."
With redo, the semantics are really simple to explain. If your brain has already been fried by make, you might be surprised by it at first, but once you get used to it, it's really much nicer this way.
Yes. If the first line of your .do file starts with the
magic "#!/" sequence (eg. #!/usr/bin/python), then redo
will execute your script using that particular interpreter.
Note that this is slightly different from normal Unix execution semantics. redo never execs your script directly; it only looks for the "#!/" line. The main reason for this is so that your .do scripts don't have to be marked executable (chmod +x). Executable .do scripts would suggest to users that they should run them directly, and they shouldn't; .do scripts should always be executed inside an instance of redo, so that dependencies can be tracked correctly.
WARNING: If your .do script is written in Unix sh, we
recommend not including the #!/bin/sh line. That's
because there are many variations of /bin/sh, and not all
of them are POSIX compliant. redo tries pretty hard to
find a good default shell that will be "as POSIXy as
possible," and if you override it using #!/bin/sh, you lose
this benefit and you'll have to worry more about
portability.
FIXME: Yes, but this is a bit imperfect.
For example, compiling a .java file produces a bunch of .class files, but exactly which files? It depends on the content of the .java file. Ideally, we would like to allow our .do file to compile the .java file, note which .class files were generated, and tell redo about it for dependency checking.
However, this ends up being confusing; if myprog depends on foo.class, we know that foo.class was generated from bar.java only after bar.java has been compiled. But how do you know, the first time someone asks to build myprog, where foo.class is supposed to come from?
So we haven't thought about this enough yet.
Note that it's okay for a .do file to produce targets other than the advertised one; you just have to be careful. You could have a default.javac.do that runs 'javac $2.java', and then have your program depend on a bunch of .javac files. Just be careful not to depend on the .class files themselves, since redo won't know how to regenerate them.
This feature would also be useful, again, with ./configure: typically running the configure script produces several output files, and it would be nice to declare dependencies on all of them.
You probably mean this 1997 paper by Peter Miller.
Yes, redo is recursive, in the sense that every target is built by its own
.do file, and every .do file is a shell script being run recursively
from other shell scripts, which might call back into redo. In fact, it's
even more recursive than recursive make. There is no
non-recursive way to use redo.
However, the reason recursive make is considered harmful is that each instance of make has no access to the dependency information seen by the other instances. Each one starts from its own Makefile, which only has a partial picture of what's going on; moreover, each one has to stat() a lot of the same files over again, leading to slowness. That's the thesis of the "considered harmful" paper.
Nobody has written a paper about it, but non-recursive make should also be considered harmful! The problem is Makefiles aren't very "hygienic" or "modular"; if you're not running make recursively, then your one copy of make has to know everything about everything in your entire project. Every variable in make is global, so every variable defined in any of your Makefiles is visible in all of your Makefiles. Every little private function or macro is visible everywhere. In a huge project made up of multiple projects from multiple vendors, that's just not okay. Plus, if all your Makefiles are tangled together, make has to read and parse the entire mess even to build the smallest, simplest target file, making it slow.
redo deftly dodges both the problems of recursive make
and the problems of non-recursive make. First of all,
dependency information is shared through a global persistent .redo
database, which is accessed by all your redo instances at once.
Dependencies created or checked by one instance can be immediately used by
another instance. And there's locking to prevent two instances from
building the same target at the same time. So you get all the "global
dependency" knowledge of non-recursive make. And it's a
binary file, so you can just grab the dependency
information you need right now, rather than going through
everything linearly.
Also, every .do script is entirely hygienic and traceable; redo
discourages the use of global environment variables, suggesting that you put
settings into files (which can have timestamps and dependencies) instead.
So you also get all the hygiene and modularity advantages of recursive make.
By the way, you can trace any redo build process just by reading the .do
scripts from top to bottom. Makefiles are actually a collection of "rules"
whose order of execution is unclear; any rule might run at any time. In a
non-recursive Makefile setup with a bunch of included files, you end up with
lots and lots of rules that can all be executed in a random order; tracing
becomes impossible. Recursive make tries to compensate for this by breaking
the rules into subsections, but that ends up with all the "considered harmful"
paper's complaints. redo runs your scripts from top to bottom in a
nice tree, so it's traceable no matter how many layers you have.
Directly using environment variables is a bad idea because you can't declare
dependencies on them. Also, if there were a file that contained a set of
variables that all your .do scripts need to run, then redo would have to
read that file every time it starts (which is frequently, since it's
recursive), and that could get slow.
Luckily, there's an alternative. Once you get used to it, this method is actually much better than environment variables, because it runs faster and it's easier to debug.
For example, djb often uses a computer-generated script called compile for
compiling a .c file into a .o file. To generate the compile script, we
create a file called compile.do:
redo-ifchange config.sh
. ./config.sh
echo "gcc -c -o \$3 $2.c $CFLAGS" >$3
chmod a+x $3
Then, your default.o.do can simply look like this:
redo-ifchange compile $2.c
./compile $1 $2 $3
This is not only elegant, it's useful too. With make, you have to always output everything it does to stdout/stderr so you can try to figure out exactly what it was running; because this gets noisy, some people write Makefiles that deliberately hide the output and print something friendlier, like "Compiling hello.c". But then you have to guess what the compile command looked like.
With redo, the command is ./compile hello.c, which looks good when
printed, but is also completely meaningful. Because it doesn't depend on
any environment variables, you can just run ./compile hello.c to reproduce
its output, or you can look inside the compile file to see exactly what
command line is being used.
As a bonus, all the variable expansions only need to be done once: when generating the ./compile program. With make, it would be recalculating expansions every time it compiles a file. Because of the way make does expansions as macros instead of as normal variables, this can be slow.
We can upgrade the compile.do from the previous answer to look something like this:
redo-ifchange config.sh
. ./config.sh
cat <<-EOF
[ -e "\$2.cc" ] && EXT=.cc || EXT=.c
gcc -o "\$3" -c "\$1\$EXT" -Wall $CFLAGS
EOF
chmod a+x "$3"
Isn't it expensive to have ./compile doing this kind of test for every single source file? Not really. Remember, if you have two implicit rules in make:
%.o: %.cc
gcc ...
%.o: %.c
gcc ...
Then it has to do all the same checks. Except make has even more implicit rules than that, so it ends up trying and discarding lots of possibilities before it actually builds your program. Is there a %.s? A %.cpp? A %.pas? It needs to look for all of them, and it gets slow. The more implicit rules you have, the slower make gets.
In redo, it's not implicit at all; you're specifying exactly how to decide whether it's a C program or a C++ program, and what to do in each case. Plus you can share the two gcc command lines between the two rules, which is hard in make. (In GNU make you can use macro functions, but the syntax for those is ugly.)
Absolutely! Although redo runs "top down" in the sense of one .do file
calling into all its dependencies, you can start at any point in the
dependency tree that you want.
Unlike recursive make, no matter which subdir of your project you're in when
you start, redo will be able to build all the dependencies in the right
order.
Unlike non-recursive make, you don't have to jump through any strange hoops
(like adding, in each directory, a fake Makefile that does make -C ${TOPDIR}
back up to the main non-recursive Makefile). redo just uses filename.do
to build filename, or uses default*.do if the specific filename.do
doesn't exist.
When running any .do file, redo makes sure its current directory is set to
the directory where the .do file is located. That means you can do this:
redo ../utils/foo.o
And it will work exactly like this:
cd ../utils
redo foo.o
In make, if you run
make ../utils/foo.o
it means to look in ./Makefile for a rule called ../utils/foo.o... and it probably doesn't have such a rule. On the other hand, if you run
cd ../utils
make foo.o
it means to look in ../utils/Makefile and look for a rule called foo.o. And that might do something totally different! redo combines these two forms and does the right thing in both cases.
Note: redo will always change to the directory containing the .do file before trying to build it. So if you do
redo ../utils/foo.o
the ../utils/default.o.do file will be run with its current directory set to ../utils. Thus, the .do file's runtime environment is always reliable.
On the other hand, if you had a file called ../default.o.do, but there was no ../utils/default.o.do, redo would select ../default.o.do as the best matching .do file. It would then run with its current directory set to .., and tell default.o.do to create an output file called "utils/foo.o" (that is, foo.o, with a relative path explaining how to find foo.o when you're starting from the directory containing the .do file).
That sounds a lot more complicated than it is. The results are actually very simple: if you have a toplevel default.o.do, then all your .o files will be compiled with $PWD set to the top level, and all the .o filenames passed as relative paths from $PWD. That way, if you use relative paths in -I and -L gcc options (for example), they will always be correct no matter where in the hierarchy your source files are.
Yes. There's nothing in redo that assumes anything about the location of your source files. You can do all sorts of interesting tricks, limited only by your imagination. For example, imagine that you have a toplevel default.o.do that looks like this:
ARCH=${1#out/}
ARCH=${ARCH%%/*}
SRC=${1#out/$ARCH/}
redo-ifchange $SRC.c
$ARCH-gcc -o $3 -c $SRC.c
If you run redo out/i586-mingw32msvc/path/to/foo.o, then
the above script would end up running
i586-mingw32msvc-gcc -o $3 -c path/to/foo.c
You could also choose to read the compiler name or options from out/$ARCH/config.sh, or config.$ARCH.sh, or use any other arrangement you want.
You could use the same technique to have separate build directories for out/debug, out/optimized, out/profiled, and so on.
Yes, unlike with make. For historical reasons, the Makefile syntax doesn't support filenames with spaces; spaces are used to separate one filename from the next, and there's no way to escape these spaces.
Since redo just uses sh, which has working escape characters and quoting, it doesn't have this problem.
No.
This problem arises as follows. foo.c includes config.h, and config.h is created by running ./configure. The second part is easy; just write a config.h.do that depends on the existence of configure (which is created by configure.do, which probably runs autoconf).
The first part, however, is not so easy. Normally, the headers that a C file depends on are detected as part of the compilation process. That works fine if the headers, themselves, don't need to be generated first. But if you do
redo foo.o
There's no way for redo to automatically know that compiling foo.c into foo.o depends on first generating config.h.
Since most .h files are not auto-generated, the easiest thing to do is probably to just add a line like this to your default.o.do:
redo-ifchange config.h
Sometimes a specific solution is much easier than a general one.
If you really want to solve the general case,
djb has a solution for his own
projects, which is a simple
script that looks through C files to pull out #include lines. He assumes
that #include <file.h> is a system header (thus not subject to being
built) and #include "file.h" is in the current directory (thus easy to
find). Unfortunately this isn't really a complete
solution, but at least it would be able to redo-ifchange a
required header before compiling a program that requires
that header.
make prints the commands it runs as it runs them. redo doesn't, although
you can get this behaviour with redo -v or redo -x.
(The difference between -v and -x is the same as it is in
sh... because we simply forward those options onward to sh
as it runs your .do script.)
The main reason we don't do this by default is that the commands get pretty long winded (a compiler command line might be multiple lines of repeated gibberish) and, on large projects, it's hard to actually see the progress of the overall build. Thus, make users often work hard to have make hide the command output in order to make the log "more readable."
The reduced output is a pain with make, however, because if there's ever a problem, you're left wondering exactly what commands were run at what time, and you often have to go editing the Makefile in order to figure it out.
With redo, it's much less of a problem. By default, redo produces output that looks like this:
$ redo t
redo t/all
redo t/hello
redo t/LD
redo t/hello.o
redo t/CC
redo t/yellow
redo t/yellow.o
redo t/bellow
redo t/c
redo t/c.c
redo t/c.c.c
redo t/c.c.c.b
redo t/c.c.c.b.b
redo t/d
The indentation indicates the level of recursion (deeper levels are dependencies of earlier levels). The repeated word "redo" down the left column looks strange, but it's there for a reason, and the reason is this: you can cut-and-paste a line from the build script and rerun it directly.
$ redo t/c
redo t/c
redo t/c.c
redo t/c.c.c
redo t/c.c.c.b
redo t/c.c.c.b.b
So if you ever want to debug what happened at a particular step, you can choose to run only that step in verbose mode:
$ redo t/c.c.c.b.b -x
redo t/c.c.c.b.b
* sh -ex default.b.do c.c.c.b .b c.c.c.b.b.redo2.tmp
+ redo-ifchange c.c.c.b.b.a
+ echo a-to-b
+ cat c.c.c.b.b.a
+ ./sleep 1.1
redo t/c.c.c.b.b (done)
If you're using an autobuilder or something that logs build results for future examination, you should probably set it to always run redo with the -x option.
Yes. You don't have to do anything special, other than the above note about declaring dependencies on config.h, which is no worse than what you would have to do with make.
Hells no. You can thank me later. But see next question.
Yes. If you have an existing Makefile (for example, in one of your subprojects), you can just call make from a .do script to build that subproject.
In a file called myproject.stamp.do:
redo-ifchange $(find myproject -name '*.[ch]')
make -C myproject all
So, to amend our answer to the previous question, you can use automake-generated Makefiles as part of your redo-based project.
Yes! redo implements the same jobserver protocol as GNU make, which means that redo running under make -j, or make running under redo -j, will do the right thing. Thus, it's safe to mix-and-match redo and make in a recursive build system.
Just make sure you declare your dependencies correctly; redo won't know all the specific dependencies included in your Makefile, and make won't know your redo dependencies, of course.
One way of cheating is to just have your make.do script depend on all the source files of a subproject, like this:
make -C subproject all
find subproject -name '*.[ch]' | xargs redo-ifchange
Now if any of the .c or .h files in subproject are changed, your make.do will run, which calls into the subproject to rebuild anything that might be needed. Worst case, if the dependencies are too generous, we end up calling 'make all' more often than necessary. But 'make all' probably runs pretty fast when there's nothing to do, so that's not so bad.
Recursive make is especially painful when it comes to parallelism. Take a look at this Makefile fragment:
all: fred bob
subproj:
touch $@.new
sleep 1
mv $@.new $@
fred:
$(MAKE) subproj
touch $@
bob:
$(MAKE) subproj
touch $@
If we run it serially, it all looks good:
$ rm -f subproj fred bob; make --no-print-directory
make subproj
touch subproj.new
sleep 1
mv subproj.new subproj
touch fred
make subproj
make[1]: 'subproj' is up to date.
touch bob
But if we run it in parallel, life sucks:
$ rm -f subproj fred bob; make -j2 --no-print-directory
make subproj
make subproj
touch subproj.new
touch subproj.new
sleep 1
sleep 1
mv subproj.new subproj
mv subproj.new subproj
mv: cannot stat 'ubproj.new': No such file or directory
touch fred
make[1]: *** [subproj] Error 1
make: *** [bob] Error 2
What happened? The sub-make that runs subproj ended up
getting twice at once, because both fred and bob need to
build it.
If fred and bob had put in a dependency on subproj, then GNU make would be smart enough to only build one of them at a time; it can do ordering inside a single make process. So this example is a bit contrived. But imagine that fred and bob are two separate applications being built from the same toplevel Makefile, and they both depend on the library in subproj. You'd run into this problem if you use recursive make.
Of course, you might try to solve this by using nonrecursive make, but that's really hard. What if subproj is a library from some other vendor? Will you modify all their makefiles to fit into your nonrecursive makefile scheme? Probably not.
Another common workaround is to have the toplevel Makefile build subproj, then fred and bob. This works, but if you don't run the toplevel Makefile and want to go straight to work in the fred project, building fred won't actually build subproj first, and you'll get errors.
redo solves all these problems. It maintains global locks
across all its instances, so you're guaranteed that no two
instances will try to build subproj at the same time. And
this works even if subproj is a make-based project; you
just need a simple subproj.do that runs make subproj.
One annoying thing about parallel builds is... they do more things in parallel. A very common problem in make is to have a Makefile rule that looks like this:
all: a b c
When you make all, it first builds a, then b, then c.
What if c depends on b? Well, it doesn't matter when
you're building in serial. But with -j3, you end up
building a, b, and c at the same time, and the build for c
crashes. You should have said:
all: a b c
c: b
b: a
and that would have fixed it. But you forgot, and you don't find out until you build with exactly the wrong -j option.
This mistake is easy to make in redo too. But it does have a tool that helps you debug it: the --shuffle option. --shuffle takes the dependencies of each target, and builds them in a random order. So you can get parallel-like results without actually building in parallel.
FIXME: So far, nobody has tried redo in a distributed build environment. It surely works with distcc, since that's just a distributed compiler. But there are other systems that distribute more of the build process to other machines.
The most interesting method I've heard of was explained (in public, this is not proprietary information) by someone from Google. Apparently, the Android team uses a tool that mounts your entire local filesystem on a remote machine using FUSE and chroots into that directory. Then you replace the $SHELL variable in your copy of make with one that runs this tool. Because the remote filesystem is identical to yours, the build will certainly complete successfully. After the $SHELL program exits, the changed files are sent back to your local machine. Cleverly, the files on the remote server are cached based on their checksums, so files only need to be re-sent if they have changed since last time. This dramatically reduces bandwidth usage compared to, say, distcc (which mostly just re-sends the same preparsed headers over and over again).
At the time, he promised to open source this tool eventually. It would be pretty fun to play with it.
The problem:
This idea won't work as easily with redo as it did with make. With make, a separate copy of $SHELL is launched for each step of the build (and gets migrated to the remote machine), but make runs only on your local machine, so it can control parallelism and avoid building the same target from multiple machines, and so on. The key to the above distribution mechanism is it can send files to the remote machine at the beginning of the $SHELL, and send them back when the $SHELL exits, and know that nobody cares about them in the meantime. With redo, since the entire script runs inside a shell (and the shell might not exit until the very end of the build), we'd have to do the parallelism some other way.
I'm sure it's doable, however. One nice thing about redo is that the source code is so small compared to make: you can just rewrite it.
Yes. Put this in your .do script:
unset MAKEFLAGS
The child makes will then not have access to the jobserver, so will build serially instead.
FIXME: The current version of redo is written in python and has not been optimized. So right now, it's usually a bit slower. Not too embarrassingly slower, though, and the slowness mostly only strikes when you're building a project from scratch.
For incrementally building only the changed parts of the project, redo can be much faster than make, because it can check all the dependencies up front and doesn't need to repeatedly parse and re-parse the Makefile (as recursive make needs to do).
redo's sqlite3-based dependency database is very fast (and it would be even faster if we rewrite redo in C instead of python). Better still, it would be possible to write an inotify daemon that can update the dependency database in real time; if you're running the daemon, you can run 'redo' from the toplevel and if your build is clean, it could return instantly, no matter how many dependencies you have.
On my machine, redo can currently check about 10,000 dependencies per second. As an example, a program that depends on every single .c or .h file in the Linux kernel 2.6.36 repo (about 36000 files) can be checked in about 4 seconds.
Rewritten in C, dependency checking would probably go about 10 times faster still.
This probably isn't too hard; the design of redo is so simple that it should be easy to write in any language. It's just even easier in python, which was good for writing the prototype and debugging the parallelism and locking rules.
Most of the slowness at the moment is because redo-ifchange (and also sh itself) need to be fork'd and exec'd over and over during the build process.
As a point of reference, on my computer, I can fork-exec redo-ifchange.py about 87 times per second; an empty python program, about 100 times per second; an empty C program, about 1000 times per second; an empty make, about 300 times per second. So if I could compile 87 files per second with gcc, which I can't because gcc is slower than that, then python overhead would be 50%. Since gcc is slower than that, python overhead is generally much less - more like 10%.
Also, if you're using redo -j on a multicore machine, all the python forking happens in parallel with everything else, so that's 87 per second per core. Nevertheless, that's still slower than make and should be fixed.
(On the other hand, all this measurement is confounded because redo's more fine-grained dependencies mean you can have more parallelism. So if you have a lot of CPU cores, redo might build faster than make just because it makes better use of them.)
FIXME: Yes, this is a general problem with python. All the lines in 'ps' end up looking like
28460 pts/2 Sl 0:00 /usr/bin/python /path/to/redo-ifchange stuff...
...which means that the "stuff..." part is often cut off on the right hand side. There are gross workarounds to fix this in python, but the easiest fix will be to just rewrite redo in C. Then it'll look like this:
28460 pts/2 Sl 0:00 redo-ifchange stuff...
...the way it should.
FIXME: There are some limited ones in the t/example/ subdir of
the redo project. The best example is a real, live program
using redo as a build process. If you switch your
program's build process to use redo, please let us know and
we can link to it here.
Please don't take the other tests in t/ as serious
examples. Many of them are doing things in deliberately
psychotic ways in order to stress redo's code and find
bugs.
redo is incomplete and probably has numerous bugs. Just what you always wanted in a build system, I know.
What's missing? Search for the word FIXME in this document; anything with a FIXME is something that is either not implemented, or which needs discussion, feedback, or ideas. Of course, there are surely other undocumented things that need discussion or fixes too.
You should join the redo-list@googlegroups.com mailing list.
You can find the mailing list archives here:
http://groups.google.com/group/redo-list
Yes, it might not look like it, but you can subscribe without having a Google Account. Just send a message here:
redo-list+subscribe@googlegroups.com
You can also send a message directly to the mailing list without subscribing first. If you reply to someone on the list, please leave them in the cc: list, since if they haven't subscribed, they won't get your reply otherwise. Nowadays everybody uses a mailer that removes duplicates, so don't worry about sending the same thing to them twice.
Note the plus sign.
Have fun,
Avery