> First, the subset of C++ supported by the compiler is rather small. As mentioned earlier, all data needs to have static sizes. This means, e.g., you can’t wri

> First, the subset of C++ supported by the compiler is rather small. As mentioned earlier, all data needs to have static sizes. This means, e.g., you can’t write a program that processes arbitrary images. Instead, you have to pick an upper bound on the image size, zero-pad the image appropriately before encrypting it, and then write the program to operate on that image size. In the same vein, the integer types you choose have nontrivial implications on performance. To see this, replace the int type in the 32-bit adder with a char and inspect the resulting circuit. > Similarly, loops need static bounds on their iteration count. Or, more precisely, xlscc needs to be able to fully unwrap every loop—which permits some forms of while loops and recursion that provably terminate. This can cause some problem if the input code has loops with complex exit criteria (i.e., break‘s guarded by if/else). It also requires you to think hard about how you write your loops, though future work will hopefully let the compiler do that thinking for you. I'm wondering if Zig wouldn't be a more appropriate language here, given its extensive support for running code at compile time (which requires all involved variable values to be known) and its integer data types which come in any bit length (u1, u2, u3, …).