Re: request for help: LLM-based quality assurance

Tim Rühsen <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.lib.gnulib.bugs
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi Bruno, Pavel

> Thanks for explaining your setup and showing their results.

I think for some kind of decision we need some kind of reproducibility 
(using the loosely here as results from LLMs rarely reproduce exactly).

 > The fact that your setup did not flag this commit as a regression shows
 > that Pavel's setup is more useful.

Absolutely. That's why I am very curious about the setup.

Another experiment with Claude code (closed source agent) connected to 
the same local LLM as before found the issue in commit 
17dc60e624cd6fc3491f9cb002f760d60e66ce8b:

"Important caveat: The original commit 17dc60e624 introduced a bug in 
mbrtowc.c — it replaced MBRTOWC_EMPTY_INPUT_BUG with 
MBRTOC32_EMPTY_INPUT_BUG (wrong macro name) and added _GL_SMALL_WCHAR_T 
(mbrtoc32-specific). This was fixed by follow-up commit 2ca51a77e6. Both 
commits should be evaluated together."

It produced a longish result/summary explaining the issue in details.
What makes Claude code different from the pi agent (OSS) is it's very 
verbose system prompt, which alone is >20.000 tokens. I did not use a 
skill this time. Claude took 15mins vs. pi taking 3mins in the previous 
experiment.

This tells me, that we have to craft a proper system prompt and/or a 
review skill to get comparable results from an oss agent + open weight 
model.

Do we already know whether we tend to
   - best results using closed source, closed weights, energy intensive, 
costly
or
   - best effort using open source, open weights, 100x (1000x?) less 
energy intensive, minimal costs
?

Does it make sense to work on a gnulib specific AGENTS.md as well as on 
a system prompt that can be used for reviews?

> 15 lines of suggestions about a #if, without noticing that this #if condition
> is in fact buggy (incomplete): It needs to be enabled on all platforms which
> test pwc or n. Including the cases MBRTOWC_NUL_RETVAL_BUG and
> MBRTOWC_IN_C_LOCALE_MAYBE_EILSEQ. I'm fixing that through the patch below.

Thank you, Bruno!

Regards, Tim
OpenPGP_signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 840 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=sDD9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.