21–30 of 787 posts
Please fix.. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can one man really make a C compiler in one week that can compile linux, sqlite, etc.? Maybe I'm underestimating the simplicity of the C language, but that doesn't sound very plausible to me.
yes, if you do not care to optimize, yes. source: done it
I'm sure this is impressive, but it's probably not the best test case given how many C compilers there are out there and how they presumably have been featured in the training data. This is almost like asking me to invent a path finding algorithm when I've been thought Dijkstra's and A*.
A pertinent quote from the article (which is a really nice read, I'd recommend reading it fully at least once):
> Previous Opus 4 models were barely capable of producing a functional compiler. Opus 4.5 was the first to cross a threshold that allowed it to produce a functional compiler which could pass large test suites, but it was still incapable of compiling any real large projects. My goal with Opus 4.6 was to again test the limits.
This is incredible!
But it also speaks to the limitations of these systems: while these agentic systems can do amazing things when automatically-evaluable, robust test suites exist... you hit diminishing returns when you, as a human orchestrator of agentic systems, are making business decisions as fast as the AI can bring them to your attention. And that assumes the AI isn't just making business assumptions with the same lack of context, compounded with motivation to seem self-reliant, that a non-goal-aligned human contractor would have.
> The generated code is not very efficient. Even with all optimizations enabled, it outputs less efficient code than GCC with all optimizations disabled. Worse than "-O0" takes skill... So then, it produced something much worse than tcc (which is better than gcc -O0), an equivalent of which one man can produce in under two weeks. So even all those tokens and dollars did not equal one man's week of work. Except the on…
Honest question, do you think it’d be easier to fix or rewrite from scratch? With domains I’m intimately familiar with, I’ve come very close to simply throwing the LLM code out after using it to establish some key test cases.
I'm sure this is impressive, but it's probably not the best test case given how many C compilers there are out there and how they presumably have been featured in the training data. This is almost like asking me to invent a path finding algorithm when I've been thought Dijkstra's and A*.
It's a bit disappointing that people are still re-hashing the same "it's in the training data" old thing from 3 years ago. It's not like any LLM could 1for1 regurgitate millions of LoC from any training set... This is not how it works. A pertinent quote from the article (which is a really nice read, I'd recommend reading it fully at least once): > Previous Opus 4 models were barely capable of producing a functional c…
> This was a clean-room implementation (Claude did not have internet access at any point during its development); it depends only on the Rust standard library. The 100,000-line compiler can build Linux 6.9 on x86, ARM, and RISC-V. It can also compile QEMU, FFmpeg, SQlite, postgres, redis, and has a 99% pass rate on most compiler test suites including the GCC torture test suite. It also passes the developer's ultimate…
It's weird to see the expectation that the result should be perfect. All said and done, that its even possible is remarkable. Maybe these all go into training the next Opus or Sonnet and we start getting models that can create efficient compilers from scratch. That would be something!