Hello all,
I am sure you are all aware that I have been using LLMs for testing and
debugging gfortran a lot lately.
I thought I would share a bit about why I have been doing so.
First, I do want to see bugs fixed and get gfortran in good shape so that when
the next standard starts to emerge we will be in a better position to focus on
implementation of the new.
Second, I think it is important for us to learn as much as we can about this new
technology and how to use it. There are advantages and disadvantages in doing so.
On the plus side these things can run hundreds of tests and variations on code
to identify defects in the compiler. This I think is valuable by itself. The
downside of this testing is one can be overwhelmed by the number of defects
found. In spite of our best efforts over the years, we still have gaps in
implementation of features and issues with already implemented features. This
can be frustrating and disappointing.
Yes, the LLMs can identify fixes rather quickly. And, sometimes they can be very
unreadable. Part of my efforts here involve experimenting with prompting and
rules to move toward better readability. This includes the simpler the better.
In this process I want to acknowledge the excellent feedback from Mikael. It is
obvious the LLMs do not have high level design approaches. I consider myself a
novice in this regard as well.
Third, I do not want to keep marching along here without getting some feedback
from everyone on this subject. I actually have about 25 patches sitting on my
worktree to be submitted. Most all have PR numbers assigned. Some are two or
three months old.
Shall I keep moving along with this? In the long term what do we do with use of
LLM tools?
Do we need to set up an online meeting to discuss?
As always, best regards to all.
Jerry
