> So you DID inspect C code differences and also checked another compiler, but > you still blame Nim, not gcc, for that time difference? Even to the point of > calling it a security issue?
Excuse me @Udiknedormin, maybe you aren't fluent in English? I have not _blamed_ Nim or gcc. I have asked the question, is it a Nim or gcc ` problem`? Since gcc, and clang, produce the same characteristic of the `problem` for the same Nim code (at least on my Intel I7 cpu system), maybe it's something else. I don't know. To me it's an interesting anomaly that needs fuller investigation. Also, I merely made the generic statement that this `could` become a security issue. Any time you have code that behaves in an unexpected way, someone may be able to exploit it. Why do you think Google, Mozilla, et al, pay bounties for people to find security bugs in their code? (In fact, Mozilla funded the creation (and uses) Rust to eliminate a whole class of coding problems afflicting its browser code.) It would be nice if you all chill out, and stop being so defensive, and focus in on the technical merits, and implications, of the issue.
