使用make的主要原因是-j标志。Make -j5将同时运行5个shell命令。如果你有4个cpu，这是一个很好的makefile测试。

基本上，你想看到的是:

.PHONY: all
all: job1 job2 job3

.PHONY: job1
job1: ; ./a.out 1

.PHONY: job2
job2: ; ./a.out 2

.PHONY: job3
job3: ; ./a.out 3

这是-j友好的(一个好迹象)。你能认出那个锅炉盘吗?我们可以写成:

.PHONY: all job1 job2 job3
all: job1 job2 job3
job1 job2 job3: job%:
    ./a.out $*

为了达到同样的效果(是的，就make而言，这与前面的公式相同，只是更紧凑一点)。

进一步的参数化，这样你就可以在命令行上指定一个限制(因为make没有任何好的算术宏，所以我在这里作弊，使用$(shell…)))

LAST := 1000
NUMBERS := $(shell seq 1 ${LAST})
JOBS := $(addprefix job,${NUMBERS})
.PHONY: all ${JOBS}
all: ${JOBS} ; echo "$@ success"
${JOBS}: job%: ; ./a.out $*

您可以使用make -j5 LAST=550运行该命令，其中LAST默认为1000。

也许你可以用:

xxx:
    for i in `seq 1 4`; do ./a.out $$i; done;

这并不是对这个问题的纯粹回答，而是一种解决这类问题的聪明方法:

而不是写一个复杂的文件，简单地委托控制，例如一个bash脚本: makefile

foo : bar.cpp baz.h
    bash script.sh

script.sh是这样的:

for number in 1 2 3 4
do
    ./a.out $number
done

这招对我很管用:

NUM=4

a-out:
    for (( i=1; i<=${NUM}; i++ )) \
    do \
        ./a.out $$i ; \
    done

我意识到这个问题已经是几年前的问题了，但是这篇文章可能仍然对某些人有用，因为它演示了一种不同于上面的方法，它既不依赖于shell操作，也不需要开发人员提取硬编码的数值字符串。

$(eval ....)内置宏是你的朋友。或者至少可以这样。

define ITERATE
$(eval ITERATE_COUNT :=)\
$(if $(filter ${1},0),,\
  $(call ITERATE_DO,${1},${2})\
)
endef

define ITERATE_DO
$(if $(word ${1}, ${ITERATE_COUNT}),,\
  $(eval ITERATE_COUNT+=.)\
  $(info ${2} $(words ${ITERATE_COUNT}))\
  $(call ITERATE_DO,${1},${2})\
)
endef

default:
  $(call ITERATE,5,somecmd)
  $(call ITERATE,0,nocmd)
  $(info $(call ITERATE,8,someothercmd)

That's a simplistic example. It won't scale pretty for large values -- it works, but as the ITERATE_COUNT string will increase by 2 characters (space and dot) for each iteration, as you get up into the thousands, it takes progressively longer to count the words. As written, it doesn't handle nested iteration (you'd need a separate iteration function and counter to do so). This is purely gnu make, no shell requirement (though obviously the OP was looking to run a program each time -- here, I'm merely displaying a message). The if within ITERATE is intended to catch the value 0, because $(word...) will error out otherwise.

注意，使用增长字符串作为计数器是因为内置的$(words…)可以提供阿拉伯计数，但make不支持数学运算(你不能将1+1赋值给某物并得到2，除非你从shell中调用某物来为你完成它，或者使用同样复杂的宏操作)。这适用于INCREMENTAL计数器，但不适用于DECREMENT计数器。

I don't use this myself, but recently, I had need to write a recursive function to evaluate library dependencies across a multi-binary, multi-library build environment where you need to know to bring in OTHER libraries when you include some library which itself has other dependencies (some of which vary depending on build parameters), and I use an $(eval) and counter method similar to the above (in my case, the counter is used to ensure we don't somehow go into an endless loop, and also as a diagnostic to report how much iteration was necessary).

Something else worth nothing, though not significant to the OP's Q: $(eval...) provides a method to circumvent make's internal abhorrence to circular references, which is all good and fine to enforce when a variable is a macro type (intialized with =), versus an immediate assignment (initialized with :=). There are times you want to be able to use a variable within its own assignment, and $(eval...) will enable you to do that. The important thing to consider here is that at the time you run the eval, the variable gets resolved, and that part which is resolved is no longer treated as a macro. If you know what you're doing and you're trying to use a variable on the RHS of an assignment to itself, this is generally what you want to happen anyway.

  SOMESTRING = foo

  # will error.  Comment out and re-run
  SOMESTRING = pre-${SOMESTRING}

  # works
  $(eval SOMESTRING = pre${SOMESTRING}

default:
  @echo ${SOMESTRING}

快乐的制作。

为了跨平台支持，让命令分隔符(用于在同一行上执行多个命令)成为可配置的。

例如，如果你在Windows平台上使用MinGW，命令分隔符是&:

NUMBERS = 1 2 3 4
CMDSEP = &
doit:
    $(foreach number,$(NUMBERS),./a.out $(number) $(CMDSEP))

这将在一行中执行连接的命令:

./a.out 1 & ./a.out 2 & ./a.out 3 & ./a.out 4 &

正如前面提到的，在*nix平台上使用CMDSEP =;