I have a pretty big codebase and I wanted to clean it out by removing and applying some ifdef's scattered around it. For example, I have lot's of these:
test.c
#ifdef MYCHECK
// do other sutff
#else
// do stuff
#endif
Is there a tool that allows me to run through the entire codebase and remove all that code, leaving only the code inside my variable condition? For example:
nicetool -D MYCHECK *.c
Would result in:
test.c
// do other stuff
It looks like unifdef is what you want, it is also used in the Linux kernel. This is the description of the tool from the linked site (emphasis mine):
The unifdef utility selectively processes conditional C preprocessor #if and #ifdef directives. It removes from a file both the directives and the additional text that they delimit, while otherwise leaving the file alone.
It is useful for avoiding distractions when studying code that uses #ifdef heavily for portability: my original motivation was to understand xterm's pty handling code. It can be used as a lightweight preprocessor; for example the Linux kernel uses unifdef to strip out #ifdef KERNEL sections from the headers it exports to userland. You can use unifdef with languages other than C; for example UIT, a publisher in Cambridge where I live, uses unifdef with LaTeX.
If you check out the manual there are some exceptions listed in the BUGS section:
Handling one line at a time means preprocessor directives split across
more than one physical line (because of comments or backslash-newline) cannot be handled in every situation.
Trigraphs are not recognized.
There is no support for macros with different definitions at different
points in the source file.
The text-mode and ignore functionality does not correspond to modern
cpp(1) behaviour.
Other options include Sunifdef whose main site no longer is available and has not been updated since 2008 and Coan: The C Preprocessor Chainsaw which describes itself as:
Coan is a software engineering tool for analysing preprocessor-based configurations of C or C++ source code. Its principal use is to simplify a body of source code by eliminating any parts that are redundant with respect to a specified configuration. Dead code removal is an application of this sort.
Coan is most useful to developers of constantly evolving products with large code bases, where preprocessor definitions and #if-directives are used differentiate progressive releases or parallel variants of the product. In these settings the upkeep of the product's configuration tree can become difficult and the incidence of configuration-related defects can become costly.
Related
I am working on an open source C driver for a cheap sensor that is used mostly for Arduino projects. The project is set up in such a way that it is possible to support multiple platforms outside the Arduino ecosystem, like the Raspberry Pi.
The project is set up with a platform.h file, with the intention of having different implementations of this header file. Like the example below:
platform.h
platform_arduino.c
platform_rpi.c
platform_windows.c
There is this (Cross-Platform C++ code and single header - multiple implementations) Stack Overflow post that goes fairly in depth in how to handle this for C++ but I feel like none of those examples really apply to this C implementation.
I have come up with some solutions like just adding the requirements for each platform at the top of the file.
#if SOME_REQUIREMENT
#include "platform.h"
int8_t t_open(void)
{
// Implementation here
}
#endif //SOME_REQUIREMENT
But this seems like a clunky solution.
It impacts readability of the code.1
It will probably make debugging conflicting requirements a nightmare.
1 Many editors (Like VS Code) try to gray out code which does not match requirements. While I want this most of the time, it is really annoying when working on cross-platform drivers. I could just disable it for the entirety of the project, but in other parts of the project it is useful. I understand that it could probably be solved using VS Code thing. However, I am asking for alternative methods of selecting the right file/code for the platform because I am interested in seeing what other strategies there are.
Part of the "problem" is that support for Arduino is the primary focus, which means it can't easily be solved with makefile magic. My question is, what are alternative ways of implementing a solution to this problem, that are still readable?
If it cannot be done without makefile magic, then that is an answer too.
For reference, here is a simplified example of the header file and implementation
platform.h
#ifndef __PLATFORM__
#define __PLATFORM__
int8_t t_open(void);
#endif //__PLATFORM__
platform_arduino.c
#include "platform.h"
int8_t t_open(void)
{
// Implementation here
}
this (Cross-Platform C++ code and single header - multiple implementations) Stack Overflow post that goes fairly in depth in how to handle this for C++ but I feel like none of those examples really apply to this C implementation.
I don't see why you say that. The first suggestions in the two highest-scoring answers are variations on the idea of using conditional macros, which not only is valid in C, but is a traditional approach. You yourself present an alternative along these lines.
Part of the "problem" is that support for Arduino is the primary focus, which means it can't easily be solved with makefile magic.
I take you to mean that the approach to platform adaptation has to be encoded somehow into the C source, as opposed to being handled via the build system. Frankly, this is an unusual constraint, except inasmuch as it can be addressed by use of the various system-identification macros provided by C compilers of interest.
Even if you don't want to rely specifically on makefiles, you should consider attributing some responsibility to the build system, which you can do even without knowing specifically what build system that is. For example, you can designate macro names, such as for_windows, etc that request builds for non-default platforms. You then leave it to the person building an instance of the driver to figure out how to configure their tools to provide the appropriate macro definition for their needs (which generally is not hard), based on your build documentation.
My question is, what are alternative ways of implementing a solution to this problem, that are still readable?
If the solution needs to be embodied entirely in the C source, then you have three main alternatives:
write code that just works correctly on all platforms, or
perform runtime detection and adaptation, or
use conditional compilation based on macros automatically defined by supported compilers.
If you're prepared to rely on macro definitions supplied by the user at build time, then the last becomes simply
use conditional compilation
Do not dismiss the first out of hand, but it can be a difficult path, and it might not be fully possible for your particular problem (and probably isn't if you're writing a driver or other code for a freestanding implementation).
Runtime adaptation could be viewed as a specific case of code that just works, but what I have in mind for this is a higher level of organization that performs runtime analysis of the host environment and chooses function variants and internal parameters suited to that, as opposed to those choices being made at compile time. This is a real thing that is occasionally done, but it may or may not be viable for your particular case.
On the other hand, conditional compilation is the traditional basis for platform adaptation in C, and the general form does not have the caveat of the other two that it might or might not work in your particular situation. The level of readability and maintainability you achieve this way is a function of the details of how you implement it.
I have come up with some solutions like just adding the requirements for each platform at the top of the file. [...] But this seems like a clunky solution.
If you must include a source file in your build but you don't want anything in it to actually contribute to the target then that's exactly what you must do. You complain that "It will probably make debugging conflicting requirements a nightmare", but to the extent that that's a genuine issue, I think it's not so much a question of syntax as of the whole different code for different platforms plan.
You also complain that the conditional compilation option might be a practical difficulty for you with your choice of development tools. It certainly seems to me that there ought to be good workarounds for that available from your tools and development workflow. But if you must have a workaround grounded only in the C language, then there is one (albeit a bad one): introduce a level of preprocessing indirection. That is, put the conditional compilation directives in a different source file, like so:
platform.c
#if defined(for_windows)
#include "platform_windows.c"
#else
#if defined(for_rpi)
#include "platform_rpi.c"
#else
#include "platform_arduino.c"
#endif
#endif
You then designate platform.c as a file to be built, but not (directly) any of the specific-platform files.
This solves your tool-presentation issue because when you are working on one of the platform-specific .c files, the editor is unlikely to be able to tell whether it would actually be included in a build or not.
Do note well that it is widely considered bad practice to #include files containing function implementations, or those not ending with an extension conventionally designating a header. I don't say otherwise about the above, but I would say that if the whole platform.c contains nothing else, then that's about the least bad variation that I can think of within the category.
I want to be able to write small scripts to analyze the macros, prototypes, etc., that are effectively included on the platform I am compiling on when I #include the official C header files associated with large external libraries in my C programs. (Assume I am compiling with gcc. Answers for other compilers are of interest too.)
Serious obstacles to this are recursive includes, conditional compilation directives, and the interactions between the two. So I seek a tool that will recursively find the text effectively included by processing these directives, producing a single header file, the inclusion of which is equivalent to the inclusion of the official ones for the current platform only.
(It would be very nice if in addition to supplying the conditionally relevant macros and C declarations, that comments were preserved, and #line directives inserted from time-to-time so as to indicate the origin of various parts of the output. But all of this is less than vital.)
I don't insist upon recursive output from non-top-level #includes, though to work properly, the tool will clearly have to recursively visit #included files inside the headers it is asked to pursue. So the tool could leave those lower level #include directives in its output, rather than recursively interpolating their recursively processed bodies.
Is there a tool out there that specializes header files in this fashion?
How can I extract just the required functions from a pile of C source files? Is there a tool which can be used on GNU/Linux?
Preferably FOSS, but the GNU/Linux is a hard requirement.
Basically I got about 10 .h files; I'd like to grab part of the code and get the required variables from the header files. Then I can make a single small .h file corresponding to the code I'm using in another project.
My terms might not be 100% correct.
One tool that you may or may not be aware of is cscope. It can be used to help you.
For a given set of files (more on what that means shortly), it gives you these options:
Find this C symbol:
Find this global definition:
Find functions called by this function:
Find functions calling this function:
Find this text string:
Change this text string:
Find this egrep pattern:
Find this file:
Find files #including this file:
Thus, if you know you want to use a function humungous_frogmondifier(), you can find where it is declared or defined by typing its name (or pasting its name) after 'Find this global definition'. If you then want to know what functions it calls, you use the next line. Once you've hit return after specifying the name, you will be given a list of the relevant lines in the source files above this menu on the screen. You can page through the list (if there are more entries than will fit on the screen), and at any time select one of the shown entries by number or letter, in which case cscope launches your editor on the file.
How about that list of files? If you run cscope in a directory without any setup, it will scan the source files in the directory and build its cross-reference. However, if you prefer, you can set up a list of files names in cscope.files and it will analyze those files instead. You can also include -I /path/to/directory on the cscope command line and it will find referenced headers in those directories too.
I'm using cscope 15.7a on some sizeable projects - depending on which version of the project, between about 21,000 and 25,000 files (and some smaller ones with only 10-15 thousand files). It takes about half an hour to set up this project (so I carefully rebuild the indexes once per night, and use the files for the day, accepting that they are a little less accurate at the end of the day). It allows me to track down unused stuff, and find out where stuff is used, and so on.
If you're used to an IDE, it will be primitive. If you're used to curses-mode programs (vim, etc), then it is tolerably friendly.
You suggest (in comments to the main question) that you will be doing this more than once, possibly on different (non-library) code bases. I'm not sure I see the big value in this; I've been coding C on an off for 30+ years and don't feel the need to do this very often.
But given the assumption you will, what you really want is a tool that can, for a given identifier in a system of C files and headers, find the definition of that identifier in those files, and compute the transitive closure of all the dependencies which it has. This defines a partial order over the definitions based on the depends-on relationship. Finally you want to emit the code for those definitions to an output file, in a linear order that honors the partial order determined. (You can simplify this a bit by insisting that the identifier you want is in a particular C compilation unit, but the rest of it stays the same).
Our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit with its C Front End can be used to do this. DMS is a general purpose program transformation system, capable of parsing source files into ASTs, perform full name resolution (e.g., building symbol tables), [do flow analysis but this isn't needed for your task]. Given those ASTs and the symbol tables, it can be configured to compute this transitive dependency using the symbol table information which record where symbols are defined in the ASTs. Finally, it can be configured to assemble the ASTs of interest into a linear order honoring the partial order.
We have done all this with DMS in the past, where the problem was to generate SOA-like interfaces based on other criteria; after generating the SOA code, the tool picked out all the dependencies for the SOA code and did exactly what was required. The dependency extraction machinery is part of the C front end.
A complication for the C world is that the preprocessor may get in the way; for the particular task we accomplished, the extraction was done over a specific configuration of the application and so the preprocessor directives were all expanded away. If you want this done and retain the C preprocessor directives, you'll need something beyond what DMS can do today. (We do have experimental work that captures macros and preprocessor conditionals in the AST but that's not ready for release to production).
You'd think this problem would be harder with C++ but it is not, because the prepreprocessor is used far more lightly in C++ programs. While we have not done extraction for C++, it would follow exactly the same approach as for C.
So that's the good part with respect to your question.
The not so good part from your point of view, perhaps, is that DMS isn't FOSS; it is a commercial tool designed to be used by my company and our customers to build custom analysis and transformation tools for all those tasks you can't get off the shelf, that make economic sense. Nor does DMS run natively on Linux, rather it is a Windows based tool. It can reach across the network using NFS to access files on other systems including Linux. DMS does run under Wine on Linux.
My C headers usually resemble the following style to avoid multiple inclusion:
#ifndef <FILENAME>_H
#define <FILENAME>_H
// define public data structures / prototypes, macros etc.
#endif /* !<FILENAME>_H */
However, in his Notes on Programming in C, Rob Pike makes the following argument about header files:
There's a little dance involving #ifdef's that can prevent a file being read twice, but it's usually done wrong in practice - the #ifdef's are in the file itself, not the file that includes it. The result is often thousands of needless lines of code passing through the lexical analyzer, which is (in good compilers) the most expensive phase.
On the one hand, Pike is the only programmer I actually admire. On the other hand, putting several #ifdefs in multiple source files instead of putting one #ifdef in a single header file feels needlessly awkward.
What is the best way to handle the problem of multiple inclusion?
In my opinion, use the method that requires less of your time (which likely means putting the #ifdefs in the header files). I don't really mind if the compiler has to work harder if my resulting code is cleaner. If, perhaps, you are working on a multi-million line code base that you constantly have to fully rebuild, maybe the extra savings is worth it. But in most cases, I suspect that the extra cost is not usually noticeable.
Keep doing what you do - It's clear, less bug-prone, and well known by compiler writers, so not as inefficient as it maybe was a decade or two ago.
You could use the non-standard #pragma once - If you search, there's probably at least a bookshelf's worth of include guards vs pragma once discussion, so I'm not going to recommend one over the other.
Pike wrote some more about it in https://talks.golang.org/2012/splash.article:
In 1984, a compilation of ps.c, the source to the Unix ps command, was
observed to #include <sys/stat.h> 37 times by the time all the
preprocessing had been done. Even though the contents are discarded 36
times while doing so, most C implementations would open the file, read
it, and scan it all 37 times. Without great cleverness, in fact, that
behavior is required by the potentially complex macro semantics of the
C preprocessor.
Compilers have become quite clever since: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cppinternals/Guard-Macros.html, so this is less of an issue now.
The construction of a single C++ binary at Google can open and read
hundreds of individual header files tens of thousands of times. In
2007, build engineers at Google instrumented the compilation of a
major Google binary. The file contained about two thousand files that,
if simply concatenated together, totaled 4.2 megabytes. By the time
the #includes had been expanded, over 8 gigabytes were being delivered
to the input of the compiler, a blow-up of 2000 bytes for every C++
source byte.
As another data point, in 2003 Google's build system was moved from a
single Makefile to a per-directory design with better-managed, more
explicit dependencies. A typical binary shrank about 40% in file size,
just from having more accurate dependencies recorded. Even so, the
properties of C++ (or C for that matter) make it impractical to verify
those dependencies automatically, and today we still do not have an
accurate understanding of the dependency requirements of large Google
C++ binaries.
The point about binary sizes is still relevant. Compilers (linkers) are quite conservative regarding stripping unused symbols. How to remove unused C/C++ symbols with GCC and ld?
In Plan 9, header files were forbidden from containing further
#include clauses; all #includes were required to be in the top-level C file. This required some discipline, of course—the programmer was
required to list the necessary dependencies exactly once, in the
correct order—but documentation helped and in practice it worked very
well.
This is a possible solution. Another possiblity is to have a tool that manages the includes for you, for example MakeDeps.
There is also unity builds, sometimes called SCU, single compilation unit builds. There are tools to help manage that, like https://github.com/sakra/cotire
Using a build system that optimizes for the speed of incremental compilation can be advantageous too. I am talking about Google's Bazel and similar. It does not protect you from a change in a header file that is included in a large number of other files, though.
Finally, there is a proposal for C++ modules in the works, great stuff https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/#!forum/modules. See also What exactly are C++ modules?
The way you're currently doing it is the common way. Pike's method cuts a bit on compilation time, but with modern compilers probably not very much (when Pike wrote his notes, compilers weren't optimizer-bound), it clutters modules and its bug-prone.
You could still cut on multi-inclusion by not including headers from headers, but instead documenting them with "include <foodefs.h> before including this header."
I recommend you put them in the source-file itself. No need to complain about some thousand needless parsed lines of code with actual PCs.
Additionally - it is far more work and source if you check every single header in every source-file that includes the header.
And you would have to handle your header-files different from default- and other third-party-headers.
He may have had an argument the time he was writing this. Nowadays decent compilers are clever enough to handle this well.
I agree with your approach - as others have commented, its clearer, self-documenting, and lower maintenance.
My theory on why Rob Pike might have suggested his approach: He's talking about C, not C++.
In C++, if you have a lot of classes and you are declaring each one in its own header file, then you'll have a lot of header files. C doesn't really provide this kind of fine-grained structure (I don't recall seeing many single-struct C header files), and .h/.c file-pairs tend to be larger and contain something like a module or a subsystem. So, fewer header files. In that scenario Rob Pike's approach might work. But I don't see it as suitable for non-trivial C++ programs.
I'm trying to streamline large chunk of legacy C code in which, even today, before doing the build guy who maintains it takes a source file(s) and manually modifies the following section before the compilation based on the various types of environment.
The example follows but here's the question. I'm rusty on my C but I do recall that using #ifdef is discouraged. Can you guys offer better alternative? Also - I think some of it (if not all of it) can be set as environment variable or passed in as a parameter and if so - what would be a good way of defining these and then accessing from the source code?
Here's snippet of the code I'm dealing with
#define DAN NO
#define UNIX NO
#define LINUX YES
#define WINDOWS_ES NO
#define WINDOWS_RB NO
/* Later in the code */
#if ((DAN==1) || (UNIX==YES))
#include <sys/param.h>
#endif
#if ((WINDOWS_ES==YES) || (WINDOWS_RB==YES) || (WINDOWS_TIES==YES))
#include <param.h>
#include <io.h>
#include <ctype.h>
#endif
/* And totally insane harcoded paths */
#if (DAN==YES)
char MasterSkipFile[MAXSTR] = "/home/dp120728/tools/testarea/test/MasterSkipFile";
#endif
#if (UNIX==YES)
char MasterSkipFile[MAXSTR] = "/home/tregrp/tre1/tretools/MasterSkipFile";
#endif
#if (LINUX==YES)
char MasterSkipFile[MAXSTR] = "/ptehome/tregrp/tre1/tretools/MasterSkipFile";
#endif
/* So on for every platform and combination */
Sure, you can pass -DWHATEVER on the command line. Or -DWHATEVER_ELSE=NO, etc. Maybe for the paths you could do something like
char MasterSkipFile[MAXSTR] = SOME_COMMAND_LINE_DEFINITION;
and then pass
-DSOME_COMMAND_LINE_DEFINITION="/home/whatever/directory/filename"
on the command line.
One thing we used to do is have a generated .h file with these definitions, and generate it with a script. That helped us get rid of a lot of brittle #ifs and #ifdefs
You need to be careful about what you put there, but machine-specific parameters are good candidates - this is how autoconf/automake work.
EDIT: in your case, an example would be to use the generated .h file to define INCLUDE_SYS_PARAM and INCLUDE_PARAM, and in the code itself use:
#ifdef INCLUDE_SYS_PARAM
#include <sys/param.h>
#endif
#ifdef INCLUDE_PARAM
#include <param.h>
#endif
Makes it much easier to port to new platforms - the existence of a new platform doesn't trickle into the code, only to the generated .h file.
Platform specific configuration headers
I'd have a system to generate the platform-specific configuration into a header that is used in all builds. The AutoConf name is 'config.h'; you can see 'platform.h' or 'porting.h' or 'port.h' or other variations on the theme. This file contains the information needed for the platform being built. You can generate the file by copying a version-controlled platform-specific variant to the standard name. You can use a link instead of copying. Or you can run configuration scripts to determine its contents based on what the script finds on the machine.
Default values for configuration parameters
The code:
#if (DAN==YES)
char MasterSkipFile[MAXSTR] = "/home/dp120728/tools/testarea/MasterSkipFile";
#endif
#if (UNIX==YES)
char MasterSkipFile[MAXSTR] = "/home/tregrp/tre1/tretools/MasterSkipFile";
#endif
#if (LINUX==YES)
char MasterSkipFile[MAXSTR] = "/ptehome/tregrp/tre1/tretools/MasterSkipFile";
#endif
Would be better replaced by:
#ifndef MASTER_SKIP_FILE_PATH
#define MASTER_SKIP_FILE_PATH "/opt/tretools/MasterSkipFile"
#endif
const char MasterSkipFile[] = MASTER_SKIP_FILE_PATH;
Those who want the build in a different location can set the location via:
-DMASTER_SKIP_FILE_PATH='"/ptehome/tregtp/tre1/tretools/PinkElephant"'
Note the use of single and double quotes; try to avoid doing this on the command line with backslashes in the path. You can use a similar default mechanism for all sorts of things:
#ifndef DEFAULTABLE_PARAMETER
#define DEFAULTABLE_PARAMETER default_value
#endif
If you choose your defaults well, this can save a lot of energy.
Relocatable software
I'm not sure about the design of the software that can only be installed in one location. In my book, you need to be able to have the old version 1.12 of the product installed on the machine at the same time as the new 2.1 version, and they should be able to operate independently. A hard-coded path name defeats that.
Parameterize by feature not platform
The key difference between the AutoConf tools and the average alternative system is that the configuration is done based on features, not on platforms. You parameterize your code to identify a feature that you want to use. This is crucial because features tend to appear on platforms other than the original. I look after code where there are lines like:
#if defined(SUN4) || defined(SOLARIS_2) || defined(HP_UX) || \
defined(LINUX) || defined(PYRAMID) || defined(SEQUENT) || \
defined(SEQUENT40) || defined(NCR) ...
#include <sys/types.h>
#endif
It would be much, much better to have:
#ifdef INCLUDE_SYS_TYPES_H
#include <sys/types.h>
#endif
And then on the platforms where it is needed, generate:
#define INCLUDE_SYS_TYPES_H
(Don't take this example header too literally; it is the concept I am trying to get over.)
Treat platform as a bundle of features
As a corollary to the previous point, you do need to detect platform and define the features that are applicable to that platform. This is where you have the platform-specific configuration header which defines the configuration features.
Product features should be enabled in a header
(Elaborating on a comment I made to another answer.)
Suppose you have a bunch of features in the product that need to be included or excluded conditionally. For example:
KVLOCKING
B1SECURITY
C2SECURITY
DYNAMICLOCKS
The relevant code is included when the appropriate define is set:
#ifdef KVLOCKING
...KVLOCKING stuff...
#else
...non-KVLOCKING stuff...
#endif
If you use a source code analysis tool like cscope, then it is helpful if it can show you when KVLOCKING is defined. If the only place where it is defined is in some random Makefiles scattered around the build system (let's assume there are a hundred sub-directories that are used in this), it is hard to tell whether the code is still in use on any of your platforms. If the defines are in a header somewhere - the platform specific header, or maybe a product release header (so version 1.x can have KVLOCKING and version 2.x can include C2SECURITY but 2.5 includes B1SECURITY, etc), then you can see that KVLOCKING code is still in use.
Believe me, after twenty years of development and staff turnover, people don't know whether features are still in use or not (because it is stable and never causes problems - possibly because it is never used). And if the only place to find whether KVLOCKING is still defined is in the Makefiles, then tools like cscope are less helpful - which makes modifying the code more error prone when trying to clean up later.
Its much saner to use :
#if SOMETHING
.. from platform to platform, to avoid confusing broken preprocessors. However any modern compiler should effectively argue your case in the end. If you give more details on your platform, compiler and preprocessor you might receive a more concise answer.
Conditional compilation, given the plethora of operating systems and variants therein is a necessary evil. if, ifdef, etc are most decidedly not an abuse of the preprocessor, just exercising it as intended.
My preferred way would be to have the build system do the OS detection. Complex cases you'd want to isolate the machine-specific stuff into a single source file, and have completely different source files for the different OSes.
So in this case, you'd have a #include "OS_Specific.h" in that file. You put the different includes, and the definition of MasterSkipFile for this platform. You can select between them by specifying different -I (include path directories) on your compiler command line.
The nice thing about doing it this way is that somebody trying to figure out the code (perhaps debugging) doesn't have to wade through (and possibly be misled by) phantom code for a platform they aren't even running on.
I've seen build systems in which most of the source files started something off like this:
#include PLATFORM_CONFIG
#include BUILD_CONFIG
and the compiler was kicked off with:
cc -DPLATFORM_CONFIG="linuxconfig.h" -DBUILD_CONFIG="importonlyconfig.h"
(this may need backslash escapes)
this had the effect of letting you separate out the platform settings in one set of files and the configuration settings in another. Platform settings manages handling library calls that may not exist on one platform or not in the right format as well as defining important size dependent types--things that are platform specific. Build settings handles what features are being enabled in the output.
Generalities
I'm a heretic who has been cast out from the Church of the GNU Autotools. Why? Because I like to understand what the hell my tools are doing. And because I've had the experience of trying to combine two components, each of which insisted on a different, incompatible version of autotools being the default version installed on my computer.
I work by creating one .h file or .c filed for every combination of platform and significant abstraction. I work hard to define a central .h file that says what the interface is. Often this means I wind up creating a "compatibility layer" that insulates me from differences between platforms. Often I wind up using ANSI Standard C whenever possible, instead of platform-specific functionality.
I sometimes write scripts to generate platform-dependent files. But the scripts are always written by hand and documented, so I know what they do.
I admire Glenn Fowler's nmake and Phong Vo's iffe (if feature exists), which I think are better engineered than the GNU tools. But these tools are part of the AT&T Software Technology suite, and I haven't been able to figure out how to use them without buying into the whole AST way of doing things, which I don't always understand.
Your example
There clearly needs to be
extern char MasterSkipFile[];
in a .h file somewhere, and you can then link against a suitable .o.
The conditional inclusion of the "right set of .h files for the platform" is something I would handle by trying to stick to ANSI C when possible, and when not possible, defining a compatibility layer in a platform-specific .h file. As it is, I can't tell what names the #includes are trying to import, so I can't give more specific advice.