[ternaryoperator]

This reminds me of a point made by the late Stan Kelly-Bootle, who for years wrote the Devil's Advocate column in UNIX Review magazine. In the early 1990s, he was discussing Microsoft's new C compiler and noted that in the promo material for the new compiler, it showed a benchmark for a loop that counted from 1 to 10,000 then printed "Hello". MS claimed that without optimization it took a few milliseconds, after optimization: 0 ms. A small asterisk explained the optimizer simply removed the loop. Kelly-Bootle pointed out, that the only reason a developer would write such a loop was to introduce a needed delay. Therefore, deleting the loop was not optimizing, but in fact pessimizing. And so, it was in fact Microsoft's Pessimizing C compiler.

[codeflo]

Of course, that's technically incorrect. The way the standards are written, the compiler is free to replace the program with any other program that has the same (in a precisely defined sense) observable behavior (these are the famous "as if" formulations in language specs). Heating up the CPU is not considered observable behavior.

If someone really just wants a delay, it's easy to either (for programs running on normal OSs) call a sleep function, or (on tiny embedded systems) add an empty inline assembler statement that the compiler can't see through.

[carlmr]

>Heating up the CPU is not considered observable behavior.

Neither is measuring delays of cached versus non-cached instructions. Yet it turns out to be very observable.

[codeflo]

Of course these things are “observable” in the literal sense. And yet, they aren’t considered to be observable by the memory model of any language spec that I know of. Same as CPU power draw, which has been used as a side-channel to extract bits of crypto keys, and is very much influenced by common optimizations.

Practically, if you need to execute a specific sequence of machine instructions in order to prevent side-channel attacks, then you have to rely on assembler, compiler intrinsics and/or OS support. But that was true way before Spectre.

[hyperhopper]

This is not true at all:

I've been many loops that turn into no-ops because all the functionality has been refactored out but this fact is hidden in function calls.

Sure, this should ideally be surfaced as a lint error, not a compiler optimization, but you cannot say that intentional delays are the "only" reason.

Also since processing time is variable, using that as a method should be extremely heavily discouraged/warned/require-opt-in

[viraptor]

Those delay loops are common on microcontrollers and the usual solution is to either make the counter volatile or insert something opaque to the compiler in the loop body.

It would be of course nice if a warning was produced for that specific case: This whole loop was removed - is it really what you wanted, or is it a broken delay loop?

[kzrdude]

I think it's a practical example of how the C language has made a journey to being more high abstraction than it used to be, in practice. And how that unsettles those used to the old behaviour.