Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: AI for optimization? Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 03:42:45 -0000 Organization: Compilers Central Sender: johnl%iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <25-05-021@comp.compilers> References: <25-05-016@comp.compilers> <25-05-018@comp.compilers> <25-05-020@comp.compilers> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="62379"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: optimize, comment Posted-Date: 26 May 2025 13:18:54 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:3664 On 2025-05-25, antispam@fricas.org wrote: > Of course we will see companies applying LLMs techniques with > little checks, but this is due to how companies works, if not > LLMs than something else would be abused. LLM-generated code cannot just be checked, because checking equivalence of two pieces of code is as hard as the Halting Problem. At best you can do it for very short program fragments, (like basic blocks of instructions, or small trees) that can be executed to see if they have the right effect on all the temporary registers. (How genetic programming works, more or less.) If the fragments don't contain any looping or recursion, you don't have to worry about nontermination. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca [General program equivalence is the halting problem, but there are subsets where you can say these two programs are equivalent or those two are not. The question is whether there are enough of those to be useful. I have no idea. -John]