Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.2602:f977:0:1::3!not-for-mail From: John Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: For those arguing over languages... Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2026 16:23:46 -0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Message-ID: <10n24mi$i44$1@reader2.panix.com> References: <10mesjc$3gnr9$1@dont-email.me> <1892e7cf30654ca1$6966$1497967$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> <10mfeki$itlb$1@news1.tnib.de> Injection-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2026 16:23:46 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="2602:f977:0:1::3"; logging-data="18564"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com" User-Agent: tin/2.6.4-20241224 ("Helmsdale") (NetBSD/10.1 (amd64)) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:82072 Marc Haber wrote: > Farley Flud 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