Okay, so you're not up to making a boringcc compiler from the nine-years old proposal of TFA's author, and you don't believe that it's possible to persuade the

Okay, so you're not up to making a boringcc compiler from the nine-years old proposal of TFA's author, and you don't believe that it's possible to persuade the C implementers to adopt different semantics, so... what do you propose then? It can be only three things, really: either "stop writing crypto algorithms altogether", or "write them in some different, sane language", or "just business as usual: keep writing them in C while complaining about those horrible implementers of C compilers". But perhaps you have a fourth option? P.S. "All they do is worship The Holy Standard. They follow the rules blindly without ever thinking whether it makes sense" — well, no. Who do you think writes The Holy Standard? Those compiler folks actually comprise quite a number of the members of JTC1/SC22/WG14, and they are also the ones who actually get to implement that standard. So to quote JeanHeyd Meneide of thephd.dev, "As much as I would not like this to be the case, users – me, you and every other person not hashing out the bits ‘n’ bytes of your Frequently Used Compiler — get exactly one label in this situation: bottom bitch".