Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude’s C Compiler vs. GCC

harshanu.space

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 377 posts

Re: Claude’s C Compiler vs. GCC

#141

Post by simianwords »

measurablefunc wrote: post #82
josephcsible wrote: post #26

> the build failed at the linker stage > The compiler did its job fine > Where CCC Succeeds Correctness: Compiled every C file in the kernel (0 errors) I don't think that follows. It's entirely possible that the compiler produced garbage assembly for a bunch of the kernel code that would make it totally not work even if it did link. (The SQLite code passing its self tests doesn't convince me otherwise, because the Li…

I agree. Lack of errors is not an indicator of correct compilation. Piping something to /dev/null won't provide any errors either & so there is nothing we can conclude from it. The fact that it compiles SQLite correctly does provide some evidence that their compiler at least implements enough of the C semantics involved in SQLite.

It can run Doom so it must mean some amount of correctness?

Re: Claude’s C Compiler vs. GCC

#143

Post by simianwords »

gignico wrote: post #51
marcus_holmes wrote: post #8

I think this is a great example of both points of view in the ongoing debate. Pro-LLM coding agents: look! a working compiler built in a few hours by an agent! this is amazing! Anti-LLM coding agents: it's not a working compiler, though. And it doesn't matter how few hours it took, because it doesn't work. It's useless. Pro: Sure, but we can get the agent to fix that. Anti: Can you, though? We've seen that the more c…

Exactly. This flawed argument by which everything will be fixed by future models drives me crazy every time.

That’s been the trend for a while. Can you make a prediction that says something concretely like “AI will not be able to do X by 2028” for a specific and well defined X?

Re: Claude’s C Compiler vs. GCC

#144

Post by measurablefunc »

simianwords wrote: post #137
chadcmulligan wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah its pretty amazing it can do this. The problem is the gaslighting by the companies making this - "see we can create compilers, we won't need programmers", programmers - "this is crap, are you insane?", classic gas lighting.

It’s giving you an idea of what Claude is capable of - creating a project at the complexity of a small compiler. I don’t know if it can replace programmers but can definitely handle tasks of smaller complexity autonomously.

You are incorrect. You can not conclude something of lower complexity will not stump it.

Re: Claude’s C Compiler vs. GCC

#145

Post by simianwords »

nikitau wrote: post #107
marcus_holmes wrote: post #8

I think this is a great example of both points of view in the ongoing debate. Pro-LLM coding agents: look! a working compiler built in a few hours by an agent! this is amazing! Anti-LLM coding agents: it's not a working compiler, though. And it doesn't matter how few hours it took, because it doesn't work. It's useless. Pro: Sure, but we can get the agent to fix that. Anti: Can you, though? We've seen that the more c…

And not to mention that a C compiler is something we have literally 50 years worth of code for. I still seriously doubt the ability of LLMs to tackle truly new problems.

What do you classify as new? Every problem that we solve as developers is a very small deviation from already existing problems. Maybe that’s the point of llms?

How many developers do you think are solving truly novel problems? Most like me are CRUD bunnies.

Re: Claude’s C Compiler vs. GCC

#146

Post by _23sd »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #8

I think this is a great example of both points of view in the ongoing debate. Pro-LLM coding agents: look! a working compiler built in a few hours by an agent! this is amazing! Anti-LLM coding agents: it's not a working compiler, though. And it doesn't matter how few hours it took, because it doesn't work. It's useless. Pro: Sure, but we can get the agent to fix that. Anti: Can you, though? We've seen that the more c…

What does this imagined conversation have to do with the linked article? The “pro” and “anti” character both sound like the kind of insufferable idiots I’d expect to encounter on social media, the OP is a very nice blog post about performance testing and finding out what compilers do, doesn’t attempt any unwarranted speculation about what agents “struggle with” or will do “next generation”, how is it an example of that sort of shitposting?

Re: Claude’s C Compiler vs. GCC

#147

Post by fourthark »

nvrmnd wrote: post #19
marcus_holmes wrote: post #8

I think this is a great example of both points of view in the ongoing debate. Pro-LLM coding agents: look! a working compiler built in a few hours by an agent! this is amazing! Anti-LLM coding agents: it's not a working compiler, though. And it doesn't matter how few hours it took, because it doesn't work. It's useless. Pro: Sure, but we can get the agent to fix that. Anti: Can you, though? We've seen that the more c…

> It's not fair to compare them like this! As someone who leans pro in this debate, I don't think I would make that statement. I would say the results are exactly as we expect. Also, a highly verifiable task like this is well suited to LLMs, and I expect within the next ~2 years AI tools will produce a better compiler than gcc.

But only if there is a competent compiler engineer running the AI, reviewing specs, and providing decent design goals.

Yes it will be far easier than if they did it without AI, but should we really call it “produced by AI” at that point?

Re: Claude’s C Compiler vs. GCC

#148

Post by simianwords »

kristiandupont wrote: post #42
ares623 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much. It's missing a tiny detail though. One side is demanding we keep giving hundreds of billions to them and at the same time promising the other side's unemployment.

I don't feel that I see this anywhere but if so, I guess I'm in a third camp. I am "pro" in the sense that I believe that LLM's are making traditional programming obsolete. In fact there isn't any doubt in my mind. However, I am "anti" in the sense that I am not excited or happy about it at all! And I certainly don't encourage anyone to throw money at accelerating that process.

Of all takes, I find this most honest and believable. Not many would want a disruption of their stable life

Re: Claude’s C Compiler vs. GCC

#150

Post by bgirard »

jeffreygoesto wrote: post #100
bgirard wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This to me sounds a lot like the SpaceX conversation: - Ohh look it can [write small function / do a small rocket hop] but it can't [ write a compiler / get to orbit]! - Ohh look it can [write a toy compiler / get to orbit] but it can't [compile linux / be reusable] - Ohh look it can [compile linux / get reusable orbital rocket] but it can't [build a compiler that rivals GCC / turn the rockets around fast enough] - T…

All these people that built GCC and evolved the language did not have the end result in their training set. They invented it. They extrapolated from earlier experiences and knowledge, LLMs only ever accidentally stumble into "between unknown manifolds" when the temperature is high enough, they interpolate with noise (in so many senses). The people building GCC together did not only solve a to technical problem. They…

That's true and I fully agree. I don't think LLMs' progress in writing a toy C compiler diminishes the achievements that the GCC project did.

But also we've just witnessed LLMs go from being a glorified line auto-complete tool to it writing a C compiler in ~3 years. And I think that's something. And noting how we keep moving the goal post.

Post reply on HN