Make It Simple - An Empirical Analysis of GNU Make Feature Use in Open Source Projects

Abstract

Abstract-Make is one of the oldest build technologies and is still widely used today, whether by manually writing Makefiles, or by generating them using tools like Autotools and CMake. Despite its conceptual simplicity, modern Make implementations such as GNU Make have become very complex languages, featuring functions, macros, lazy variable assignments and (in GNU Make 4.0) the Guile embedded scripting language. Since we are interested in understanding how widespread such complex language features are, this paper studies the use of Make features in almost 20,000 Makefiles, comprised of over 8.4 million lines, from more than 350 different open source projects. We look at the popularity of features and the difference between hand-written Makefiles and those generated using various tools. We find that generated Makefiles use only a core set of features and that more advanced features (such as function calls) are used very little, and almost exclusively in hand-written Makefiles.

An Empirical Study on the Use of CSS Preprocessors

“…Callaú et al [25] conducted an empirical study on the use of the reflection feature in 1000 Smalltalk projects by statically tracing the features being used from the AST of the source code. Martin et al [26] examined the use of GNU Make's language features (such as functions, macros, lazy variable assignments and the Guile embedded scripting language) in around 12k make files of 250 open source projects. They used TXL to define a custom grammar for Makefiles to extract and count instances of features.…”

Four languages and lots of macros: analyzing autotools build systems

“…Adams et al [18,19] and S.McIntosh et al [34] have shown how build systems continue to grow in size and complexity. Martin et al [32,33] work focused specifically on Makefiles and shed light on the complexity associated with maintaining Makefiles due to the various features and constructs utilized within them. Seo et al [39] studied builds at Google and stated that up to 37% of their build failed, mostly due to neglected build maintenance.…”