arguably there are already several places in the language where things like this can happen. for example, initializing a static function variable has certain thread safety guarantees (two threads entering the function won't step on each other), and while it's nice to not worry about it, this can certainly be a problem if you're trying to stay close to the metal and not pull in any dependencies.
> I don't see a good reason for the transformation: pretty much any time you are writing a bare infinite loop like this you don't want anything else to happen (it's also silly that it only happens with a particular spelling of an infinite loop, keeping the others still undefined).
I'm not disagreeing with you, but two things worth considering are 1) you don't always write loops like that _intentionally_; 2) if a bug like that slips into production system, it would be good to make sure it doesn't starve other threads.
This is true. Static initialization will often generate calls to lock functions and that can be a faff to deal with. But I don't see what the point of the sched_yield() is. Using it at all is already a code smell and calling it repeatedly in a tight loop is the kind of thing kernel developers were trying to beat out of application developers decades ago because it just isn't really very helpful (and often actively harmful) with any but the dumbest of schedulers. It's certainly not very useful for avoiding thread starvation.
> However, math problems are really there to solve a real world problem.
this is ABSOLUTELY not how actual mathematicians see their field. A problem in mathematics is just that: its interest to a pure mathematician is not related to any applications in other disciplines.
I don't really understand what makes a mathematical problem "interesting" because of my bias as an engineer. Nothing is interesting to me unless I can use it to solve a "real world problem". But, I'm willing to concede that "solving real world problems" is really not how mathematics advances.
Things like complex numbers or quaternions were often thought about way outside of the context of their modern applications in physics and engineering. When Hamilton thought about quaternions I really doubt he cared that it would make some programmer's life easier 200 years later:
> Every morning in the early part of October 1843, on my coming down to breakfast,
> your brother William Edwin and yourself used to ask me:
> "Well, Papa, can you multiply triples?"
> Whereto I was always obliged to reply, with a sad shake of the head,
> "No, I can only add and subtract them." [1]
If we go back further, Pythagoreans weren't trying to solve "real problems" either, they were like a weird religious cult.
My point is, the practice of "real" mathematics is really something that odd people feel driven to do, not unlike painting or playing an instrument. All the applied stuff is just a byproduct (not unlike ad billboards or elevator music).
> this is ABSOLUTELY not how actual mathematicians see their field
While this might be true, I think this is the big pivot that will need to happen. Math, as a human endeavor, will all be applied. We will use LLMs to do the math and discover the math, and humans will apply it to whatever problem they are working on (likely using another LLM to integrate it).
what this article tells me is that no one at Nvidia actually cares about this project whatsoever. otherwise, they would have had a person actually write the announcement.
> It would be too annoying for a human to ever write code to standards this high,
These are standards of a normal university operating systems course (assuming a university worth its salt anyway). Ridiculous to present it as some kind of feat that was "impossible" or even that rare.
Sure, a very smart and patient human could write this by hand in a long enough time horizon and unlimited budget. I should have said impossible in any realistic amount of time any responsible sponsor or employer would pay for.
is textbook definition of boilerplate. you need to be patient to cross-reference syscall tables but certainly not smart.
Again, students learning about operating systems do similar things as a normal part of their education process.
I'm not saying LLMs wouldn't help with this (in fact, this is the type of thing that becomes pretty much a no-op with them) but the notion that this is "impossible by any realistic standards" is risible, and if you have actually contributed to the kernel like you say, you should know better.
Rather than patiently referencing syscall tables by hand which is error prone and hard to review as a human, the LLM wrote tests to actually compare each of these to the kernel syscall tables to make my life a lot easier and avoid regressions or mistakes. Complex tests to write, that saves me a lot of time as a security reviewer. Can change any value and watch tests fail.
That is the point. Getting to results that satisfy security and functionality requirements in much less time.
Also, I was able to generate a bare minimal and hardened kernel config by using the LLM to write a tool to trace all kernel calls. Something that I would have normally been forced to punt on that LLMs made easy to justify.
LLMs are just as Linus Torvalds likes to say "Auto complete on steroids".
The parsing code isn't even correct, though. I'm sure it works for the current input source code, but it's a clear sign of an LLM developing by iteration, rather than actually understanding the problem and coming up with a correct solution.
How often does "this table of constants was transcribed incorrectly" even come up as a bug class? Is it worth writing a buggy C parser for a failure mode that doesn't happen? Do you expect that Linux is going to change their constant definitions out from under you?
Correct depends on what problem one is trying to solve though the parsing can certainly be cleaned up before release. It is a working WIP.
> Do you expect that Linux is going to change their constant definitions out from under you
Unlikely but I have been surprised before. Hardcoding to pretty much any modern kernel source version forever for this narrow use case is probably fine.
The goal is about helping me and a reviewer quickly form confidence none of the magic numbers are mistaken or malicious in an automated way against the source of truth.
The status quo. Framing things in this way is something I first encountered in libertarian/capitalist propaganda (when I didn't know better and was basically a dogmatic libertarian). The message is basically: people should focus on the goods the status quo provides, instead of the political power, economic security, etc. that it doesn't.
I don't see why pointing out improvements in quality of life is "propaganda for the status quo" or precludes talking about political power and economic security. We can and do talk about both all the time.
If you know anything about libertarian cranks, this doesn't make any sense and smacks of projection. They're not "satisfied with the status quo" qua political structure or economy.
There's a value in gratitude and recognizing widespread improvements in QoL, in large part fuelled by growth in the past century, and taking advantage of state capacity. That's not tantamount to saying there are no issues today, let alone that you shouldn't care. You can at least criticize accurately and take things at face value.
> If you know anything about libertarian cranks, this doesn't make any sense and smacks of projection. They're not "satisfied with the status quo" qua political structure or economy.
I didn't say anything about "libertarian cranks." I've only first (and mainly) seen this line of thought in "libertarian/capitalist propaganda."
And I think you can broadly break that propaganda down into (at least) two broad efforts, with somewhat different goals:
1. Preventing movement from the status quo in a non-libertarian direction. That's where this kind of thing comes in, because it can be used to distract from dissatisfaction.
2. Advocating that the status quo to change in a more libertarian direction.
Tautologically, libertarian "propaganda" would be pushed by libertarian ideologues. You've revealed that you're conflating libertarian and "capitalist", so I take it that through your interpretation, any remotely pro-market sentiment is "libertarian propaganda" (like plain ol' Liberalism, or, suggesting that zoning reform i.e. the govt getting out of it's own way can improve housing affordability). After all, no one comes out and says "this is propaganda", and you're telegraphing your yardstick.
> Preventing movement from the status quo in a non-libertarian direction.
The fact that you think the status quo is somehow in line with libertarian ideology, as I helpfully hinted at, tells me you have no clue what you're talking about. Developed countries broadly exercise a Liberal democracy with mixed-market economy and substantial government spending and intervention, which has mostly gone up over time. That's something libertarians whine about, not boast about.
> I first encountered in libertarian/capitalist propaganda
you should definitely look up the communist/socialist propaganda on East Germany and Soviet Union. In capitalism there is no such thing as what is provided by status quo, that's the whole point of capitalism, you can have whatever you want as long as you are willing do whatever it takes, unlike socialism/communism where you're allowed to have whatever the government mandates as the max (land, money, etc.) you can have
reply