Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjmlp | Hacker News Reader

Produce a dumb machine code quality, enough to bootstrapt it, and go from there.

Move away from classical UNIX compiler pipelines.

However in current times, I would rather invest into LLM improvements into generating executables directly, the time to mix AI into compiler development has come, and classical programming languages are just like doing yet another UNIX clone, in terms of value.

View on HN

mm, a non deterministic compiler with no way to verify correctness, what could go wrong lol

Ask C and C++ developers, they are used to it, and still plenty of critical software keeps being written with them.

C and C++ compilers are deterministic and have guarantees of correctness similar to that of other languages (esp ones that share share the same llvm backend)

Provided you're clever enough to avoid UB land mines, and compiler specific implementation non portable behaviours.

C++ compilers are not required to be deterministic and in practice are not, at least as far as "same source code produces same observable behavior". Things that can introduce non-determinism include the order in which symbols are linked, static variable initialization, floating point operations (unless you use strict mode, which is not mandated by the standard), and this is ignoring the obvious stuff like unspecified behavior which is specifically defined as behavior which can differ between different runs on the same system.

Also correctness guarantees? Hahaha... I'll pretend you didn't just claim C++ has correctness guarantees on par with other languages, LLVM or otherwise. C++ gives you next to nothing with respect to correctness guarantees.

Excellent point, undefined behavior is exactly like an LLM. Surely this is what “alignment” in the standard is talking about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com