> Hi, I'm the guy who wrote the original VCBlog post. Hi from one compiler engineer to another! > Chandler is the guy driving Spectre in LLVM. I actually sit

> Hi, I'm the guy who wrote the original VCBlog post. Hi from one compiler engineer to another! > Chandler is the guy driving Spectre in LLVM. I actually sit about 25ft away from him; we talked about his tweet before lunch today. :) > there is not an automatic fix available for Spectre. The /Qspectre switch offers help in mitigation. It doesn't offer, nor does it claim to offer, complete protection. When I read this sentence and the footnote in the VCBlog post my takeaway is that /Qspectre offers incomplete protection that is nonetheless useful for a nontrivially broad class of applications. That is, I understand "incomplete mitigation" to be a stronger statement than "there exists a program in which the spectre attack is mitigated". But when I read Paul's post, what I understand is that the level of protection offered is not useful for applications that do not look extremely similar to the original Spectre PoC. I wonder if you think I'm being unfair in my reading of either of these documents?