Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #82072

Re: For those arguing over languages...

From	John <john@panix.com>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.misc
Subject	Re: For those arguing over languages...
Date	2026-02-17 16:23 +0000
Organization	PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID	<10n24mi$i44$1@reader2.panix.com> (permalink)
References	<10mesjc$3gnr9$1@dont-email.me> <1892e7cf30654ca1$6966$1497967$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> <10mfeki$itlb$1@news1.tnib.de>

Show all headers | View raw

Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> ...more fuel on the fire...
>>> 
>>> https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/09/compilers_undermine_encryption/
>>> 
>>> GCC erases code whose delays obfuscates encryption delays because it
>>> doesn't do anything...
>>
>>A complete non issue.  Click bait.
>>
>>Just shut off optimization, either en masse or selectively via the dozens
>>of switches.
>>
>>Knowing how to compile is just as important as knowing how to program.
> 
> Does GCC have pragmas so that the programmer can turn off optimization
> for only those code parts? That would probably be the wise thing to do
> Turning off optimization completely doesn't sound like the right
> thing.

Don't know whether or not this was suggested downthread:
write your delay code as a callable function, compile it
separately without optimization, and then link that
delayfunc.o file with your other code, which has been
modified to call delayfunc() as needed. As already stated,
a complete non-issue.
-- 
John

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