Re: [PATCH] match: fold a remainder compared with its dividend

On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 7:10 PM Jeffrey Law
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/6/2026 11:55 PM, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
> >
> >> On 6 Aug 2026, at 07:45, Jeffrey Law <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8/5/2026 11:06 PM, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
> >>>> Like most of these, I'm curious where this showed up :-)
> >>> I asked an AI agent to mine SPEC2026 and a few other workloads that are of interest to me to find missing folds.
> >>> It turned out to be a quite productive exercise. I can recommend it as a way to constructively use these agents for things other than writing GCC code. I don’t think this particular fold is on a hot path or anything, but it is obviously a beneficial one anyway (it reduces the complexity of the IR, as match.pd folds intend)
> >> THanks.  We should probably talk further given that info.    I've proposed a talk for Cauldron, one section of which would be using LLMs to help discover code sequences we can improve.  What we've been experimenting with is taking hot block information from QEMU (in the form of assembly blocks with headers indicating how hot the block is), then having the LLM mine those blocks for improved instruction sequences.  Then we (of course) validate what the LLM finds and determine if it's worth implementing.  We've found several things using this approach for RISC-V.  It has the nice property that when the LLM flags something, you know it's hit at runtime and you can evaluate if it's hot enough to be likely worth the time to fix.
> >>
> >> If you wanted to co-present what you're doing, I can certainly make room.  Or if you're already proposing a session, I'll have to make sure to attend.
> > I’d be happy to.
> > I was thinking of proposing a session on using AI tools for GCC development in general: finding opportunities, bugs, orchestration etc. I’m happy to co-present at your session as it seems we’re thinking about the same topics.
> THen let's go with that as a plan.  I haven't heard anything yet, but
> figure we'll likely have an hour.  I'll probably want to cover a bit of
> the context around the AI policy.  Then say 15-20 for the 3 technical
> topics.
>
>    1. Your work using LLMs to mine benchmarks (or sources in general)
> for missed folds.
>    2. Using LLMs to mine assembly sequences for potential improvements
>    3. Using LLMs to help with patch review

I think we're also seeing a lot of (unattributed) LLM assisted patches lately.

I have used LLMs to do offline bug analysis with moderate success and
I might want
to play with LLMs taking up the daily churn of going through bugzilla,
adding missing
classification, etc. - but that would make LLM modify bugs ....

>
> Jeff