>Visual studio compiled programs are now backdoored Is it

if you were developing and running software on a microsoft platform you already knew you were backdoored.

This isn't news.

File: saint stallman.jpg (63KB, 572x322px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 572x322px

>Visual Studio back doors compiler
>Visual Studio removes x86 SIMD + inline assembly support from 64bit C compiler, Micro$oft's solution: Use MASM64
>ICC inserts instructions to slow down AMD cores
Why haven't you accepted the FOSS lifestyle yet?
GCC is the most superior C compiler
Linux is the most superior OS
>Newest's features?
Had them before the core was made
>First party support?
Companies demand Linux runs good on ARM/x64/POWER8 processors
>Customization?
Plz
>Inb4 manchildren w/ muh games
>Inb4 manchildren w/ muh gpu
Win fags will attack this
Freefags have seen the light
Good luck getting spied on while you poo in the loo

>>58537078
>triggers a ETW event, when it's turned on
>when it's turned on

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg697147.aspx
>Before you can retrieve information about your application, you must enable ETW logging.

OP is BTFO

>>58537342
Get out, kike

>>58537471
>its botnet if you go out of your way to explicitly opt in

File: 1464664496981.png (96KB, 920x578px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 920x578px

>>58537078
>using ANY microshit product

>>58540093
>with your consent
>you have requested or authorized

File: 1477685830156.png (370KB, 653x1315px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 653x1315px

>>58540192
>with your consent
>or (((as necessary)))
Are you trying?

Question - What do the jews do with this data?

>>58540213
>>or (((as necessary)))
>to comply with applicable law
>we will not inspect a customer's private content ourselves

Jesus Christ. How big of a cuck do you have to be touch anything done by Microsoft at this point?

File: 1464373522021.webm (1MB, 1718x938px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1718x938px

>>58540226
>we will """not"" inspect a customer's private content ourselves

>>58540223
>>58540093

>>58540256
What the fuck is your shitty video supposed to prove? First off there is a lot more than the privacy control panel if you were to bother to read the technet arcitles about how to remove botnet. Secondly it shows traffic to 68.142103.219 which is assigned to LimeLight not Microsoft

https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-68-142-64-0-1/pft?s=68.142.103.219

vs is the best ide by far

File: 1457806624903.gif (2MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x360px

>>58540287
yes goy, use our best ide, there is no botnet

>>58540303 come on cunt vs is virtually free - i chose to pay with a little telemetry rather than cash

>>58537181
>GCC is the most superior C compiler
That's a funny way to spell llvm.

>>58541607
garbage tier performance, the ONLY reason to use llvm is because you want to look cool

>>58537181
>removes x86 SIMD +inline assembly support
Holy schnikes. Do you have a source for that? DESU that comes as a surprise to me.

>>58537078
hmm, as far I know it only emits an ETW event to the local event log...

File: tmp_28167-1452648329999-374226752.jpg (14KB, 300x295px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 300x295px

>>58540341

>>58541614
>garbage tier performance
Benchmarks show otherwise
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc-61-clang39&num=1

>>58540223
Fap

>>58541722
Article says llvm/clang is only good for compilation time. That, without gcc's optimizations.

>>58542183
No...the article didn't say that at all. This is what the article said:
>Clang tends to perform very well against GCC for many of the C/C++ workloads out there, but in some areas the GNU Compiler Collection remains ahead while in others Clang is able to yield a striking win. Clang though is still leading over GCC when it comes to faster compile times. It really depends upon your particular workloads and what features/functionality are important to you outside of runtime performance in deciding between using GCC and Clang.