Re: Policy on use of LLM tools and bug fixes
Project / Subsystem
gcc / gcc
Date
2026-04-25
Proposer
Richard Biener
Source type
public_inbox
Consensus
Proposed
Sentiment
—/10
Technical tradeoffs
- • Using LLMs may increase development speed but introduces risks to code quality and maintainability.
- • Including prompts in commits may aid code review but can clutter the commit history.
- • Limiting LLM use to local changes may reduce risks but restrict potential benefits.
All attributes
- project
- gcc
- subsystem
- gcc
- patch_id
- —
- discussion_id
- 45953524-39c8-4046-a805-698e3c8b243e@netcologne.de
- source_type
- public_inbox
- title
- Re: Policy on use of LLM tools and bug fixes
- headline
- Policy on use of LLM tools and bug fixes
- tldr
- The discussion continues on the policy for using LLMs in GCC development, focusing on appropriate use cases and code review processes.
- proposer
- Richard Biener
- consensus
- Proposed
- outcome
- proposed
- sentiment_score
- —
- technical_tradeoffs
-
- • Using LLMs may increase development speed but introduces risks to code quality and maintainability.
- • Including prompts in commits may aid code review but can clutter the commit history.
- • Limiting LLM use to local changes may reduce risks but restrict potential benefits.
- series_id
- —
- series_role
- standalone
- series_parts
- []
- tags
-
- • gcc
- • llm
- • ai
- • policy
- • code review
- bugzilla_url
- —
- date
- 2026-04-25T00:00:00.000Z
Re: Policy on use of LLM tools and bug fixes
The discussion continues regarding a policy for using LLM tools for bug fixes in GCC. Richard Biener suggests that LLMs may be useful for finishing neglected transitions, but are not ready to implement new compiler features. Eric Botcazou agrees, suggesting limiting changes to the local scope. Giacomo Tesio mentions their corporate policy of including prompts in commits containing LLM output to aid code review.