> or you can have code that "does what you want",

> but you can't have both.

This is simply not true. And it were horrible if it were true. "Code that does what I want" (or more precisely: what I tell it to) is the very basic requirement of a programming language. If you can't do that, it doesn't matter what else you can do. Go home until you can fulfill the basic requirement.

> very small compromise

This is also not true. The vast majority of the performance gains from optimizations come from fairly simple things, but these are not -O0. After that you run into diminishing returns very quickly. I realize that this sucks for compiler research (which these days seems to be largely optimization research), but please don't take it out on working programmers.

What is true is that you can't have optimizations that dramatically rewrite the code. C is not the language for those types of optimizations. It is the language for assisting the developer in writing fast and predictable code

> even simple things like loop vectorization

I am not at all convinced that loop vectorization is something a C compiler should do automatically. I'd rather have good primitives that allow me to request vectorized computation and a diagnostic telling me how I could get it.

C is not FORTRAN.

As another example: condensing a loop that you can compute the result of at runtime. Again, please tell me about it, rather than leaving it in without comment and "optimizing" it. Yes, I know you're clever, please use that cleverness to help me rather than to show off.

> Really, can you blame the compiler?

Absolutely, I can.

> If you had a conditional that had a branch that was provably false,

"Provable" only by making assumptions that are invalid ("validated" by creative interpretations of standards that have themselves been pushed in that direction).

> wouldn't you want the compiler to optimize it out?

Emphatically: NO. I'd want a diagnostic that tells me that there is dead code, and preferably why you consider it to be dead code. Because if I write code and it turns out to be dead, THAT'S A BUG THAT I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT.

This isn't rocket science.

> security issue you mentioned, that's basically what the compiler's doing: removing a branch that it knows never occurs.

Only for a definition of "knows" (or "never", take your pick) that is so broad/warped as to be unrecognizable, because the branch actually needed to occur and would have occurred had the compiler not removed it!

> The article you linked to in your blog post is most likely not serious

I think I noted that close relationship in the article, though maybe in a way that was a bit too subtle.