Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #82009

Re: For those arguing over languages...

From	Rich <rich@example.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.misc
Subject	Re: For those arguing over languages...
Date	2026-02-13 03:20 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<10mm5ac$1vrmj$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <azKdnRQU0p54ZRb0nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <10mij0u$rimo$1@dont-email.me> <mv4dtrFbh74U1@mid.individual.net> <wwvv7g270br.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> <21CdnSY99br6GRP0nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>

Show all headers | View raw

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> On 2/12/26 04:55, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>>> In the example posted:
>>>
>>>    The user types in a password, which gets checked against
>>>    a database, character by character. Once the first character
>>>    doesn't match, an error message is returned.
>>>
>>> ...the fault is not of the compiler, but of the programmer. He has to
>>> examine all characters even if he knows there is no point.
>> 
>> Obviously you didn’t read the whole article...
> 
>   It's "examining" behavior that's the fault :-)
> 
>   If you ALWAYS process ALL the characters, and/or try
>   to make fake timing so success/fail will use up the
>   same amount of CPU time, THEN you're ahead of the game.

Obviously you didn’t read [Richard Kettlewell's posts]

The C code was, if executed literally as written, processing ALL the 
characters.

But in both the optimized state (-O3) and the "do not optimize" state 
(-O0) the GCC output object code was skipping execution of much of the 
object code that needed to be executed for a "constant time" 
comparison.

Back to comp.os.linux.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

For those arguing over languages... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-10 09:09 +0000
  Re: For those arguing over languages... Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-10 13:11 +0000
  Re: For those arguing over languages... Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2026-02-10 14:08 +0000
    Re: For those arguing over languages... Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2026-02-10 15:16 +0100
      Re: For those arguing over languages... Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-10 16:19 +0000
        Re: For those arguing over languages... Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-10 18:20 +0000
      Re: For those arguing over languages... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-02-10 11:22 -0500
      Re: For those arguing over languages... John  <john@panix.com> - 2026-02-17 16:23 +0000
        Re: For those arguing over languages... Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-02-19 19:26 +0000
          Re: For those arguing over languages... Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-22 09:28 +0000
    Re: For those arguing over languages... John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-10 08:24 -0800
      Re: For those arguing over languages... Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-10 18:16 +0000
  Re: For those arguing over languages... c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-10 22:34 -0500
    Re: For those arguing over languages... Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-02-11 18:50 +0000
      Re: For those arguing over languages... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-11 19:28 +0000
        Re: For those arguing over languages... Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-02-11 21:27 +0000
          Re: For those arguing over languages... Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-12 09:48 +0000
            Re: For those arguing over languages... c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-12 20:48 -0500
      Re: For those arguing over languages... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-02-11 16:24 -0500
        Re: For those arguing over languages... Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-02-11 22:45 +0000
          Re: For those arguing over languages... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-12 12:42 +0000
      Re: For those arguing over languages... "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-02-11 23:24 +0100
        Re: For those arguing over languages... Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-11 22:48 +0000
        Re: For those arguing over languages... Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-02-11 22:49 +0000
        Re: For those arguing over languages... Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-12 09:55 +0000
          Re: For those arguing over languages... "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-02-12 11:49 +0100
          Re: For those arguing over languages... c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-12 20:54 -0500
            Re: For those arguing over languages... Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-02-13 03:20 +0000
              Re: For those arguing over languages... c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-12 23:44 -0500
        Re: For those arguing over languages... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-12 12:38 +0000
          Re: For those arguing over languages... "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-02-12 15:14 +0100
            Re: For those arguing over languages... Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-02-12 17:23 +0000
              Re: For those arguing over languages... "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-02-12 19:52 +0100
                Re: For those arguing over languages... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-13 10:11 +0000
                Re: For those arguing over languages... Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-13 10:20 +0000
            Re: For those arguing over languages... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-13 10:10 +0000
              Re: For those arguing over languages... c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-13 19:57 -0500
          Re: For those arguing over languages... c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-12 20:56 -0500

csiph-web