4 ms·
This seems to indicate that modern optimizers still have a long way to go to be as effective as they could be, since broadly similar code even in different styl
by petercooper 11y ago
This seems to indicate that modern optimizers still have a long way to go to be as effective as they could be, since broadly similar code even in different styles would end up with the same, most efficient end result(?)
- AndyMcConachie 11y agoI think you're assuming there is one maximally efficient ASM product that can be known at compile time. The same program will work on different inputs, and it's possible that different ASM products will handle some inputs more efficiently than others.
- kevin_thibedeau 11y agoThey did this with optimizations off: The above mentioned executable binaries are compiled without any compiler optimizations, which are options to make binaries smaller and faster while transforming the source code more than plain compilation. As a result, compiler optimizations further normalize authorial style. Everyone's still safe with some -O* code massage.
- maaaats 11y agoDid you read the next sentences? Even with optimizations turned on they could predict, not just as well.
- placeybordeaux 11y agoSaying everyone is 'still safe with some -O* code massage' is a very strong assumption. In fact the paper in question deals with the issue. Taken from section VI. A. " Compiler Optimization: Programmers of optimized executable binaries can be de-anonymized.": "[...] programming style is preserved to a great extent even in the most aggressive level-3 optimization. This shows that programmers of optimized executable binaries can be de-anonymized and optimization is not a highly effective code anonymization method." Please try and do a basic level of investigation before making claims.