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. 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
