Security patterns and anti-patterns in embedded development

Posted May 1, 2024 11:47 UTC (Wed) by smurf (subscriber, #17840)
In reply to: Security patterns and anti-patterns in embedded development by willy
Parent article: Security patterns and anti-patterns in embedded development

Also there's cmake's propensity for spitting out errors halfway through a complicated setup and then, surprise, going through the other half of the complicated setup before finally dying … with an error message that kindof implies that the last step of the complicated setup has gone wrong.

Funnily enough, that last step often is looking for the precise flavor of the pthread[s] library, which habitually "fails" because the check for the 'wrong' variant prints an error message. A web search for pthreads "breaking" your cmake script yields a heap of confused examples.

Makefiles aren't exactly anti-pattern-free either. You can make them arbitrarily complex, if not NP-complete. Look at the Linux kernel's build system if you need an example.

Security patterns and anti-patterns in embedded development

Posted May 3, 2024 1:06 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

Yes, sometimes you want `message(FATAL_ERROR)` to stop ASAP, other times you want to try and get as many questions in the cache at once to reduce reconfigure cycles when satisfying a project's requests. But as with any tool, starting with the *first* reported error is usually a good place to start.