Re: Claude AI code audit of GNUstep core stack — 150 fixes, 12 perf optimizations, all available for upstream

Hi Todd,

Todd White wrote:
>
> https://github.com/DTW-Thalion/gnustep-audit
>
> I wanted to share what we found and offer to contribute any or all of 
> the changes back upstream.

Thanks for the work.
I would best prefer to have separate PR-s so that each one can be 
analyzed, refuted, reworked or changed on.
At a first glance, I cherry-picked a couple of commits in base and gui, 
there are interesting points to be analyzed.

LLM generated suggestions are a hot topic these days, also among our 
community. On one side the question about ethics, on the other the noise 
they generate. Some members feel pressed by the generation of requests. 
Some project have banned them completely. I hope we don't bring GNUstep 
to that point, but keep a good line of usage.

I have seen other attempts in AI usage with some fellow coders here, the 
advantage of here that the commits are retained atomic and so easier to 
single-check, refute or rewrite.

I find it interesting that the whole codebase was checked.


Question: Are any of these issues you found directly related to real 
bugs you found and open issues? Are you actively using GNUstep code?
Or are the bugs found only by AI itself.

I see some choices debatable, e.g. enlarging cache and buffer values, 
without hard data. Or using certain atomics function: this might work in 
specific environments, but break others. Having separate commits makes 
it easier to test, including running our own test suite (as limited as 
it currently is, though, in terms of architectures)

Regards,

Riccardo