LLVM: InstCombine: A PR by Alex Gaynor and Claude Code

llvm: InstCombine: improve optimizations for ceiling division with no overflow - a PR by Alex Gaynor and Claude Code. Alex Gaynor maintains rust-asn1, and recently spotted a missing LLVM compiler optimization while hacking on it, with the assistance of Claude (Alex works for Anthropic).

He describes how he confirmed that optimization in So you want to serialize some DER?, taking advantage of a tool called Alive2 to automatically verify that the potential optimization resulted in the same behavior.

Alex filed a bug, and then...

Obviously the next move is to see if I can send a PR to LLVM, but it’s been years since I was doing compiler development or was familiar with the LLVM internals and I wasn’t really prepared to invest the time and energy necessary to get back up to speed. But as a friend pointed out… what about Claude?

At this point my instinct was, "Claude is great, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to effectively code review any changes it proposes, and I'm not going to be the asshole who submits an untested and unreviewed PR that wastes a bunch of maintainer time". But excitement got the better of me, and I asked claude-code to see if it could implement the necessary optimization, based on nothing more than the test cases.

Alex reviewed the resulting code very carefully to ensure he wasn't wasting anyone's time, then submitted the PR and had Claude Code help implement the various changes requested by the reviewers. The optimization landed two weeks ago.

Alex's conclusion (emphasis mine):

I am incredibly leery about over-generalizing how to understand the capacity of the models, but at a minimum it seems safe to conclude that sometimes you should just let the model have a shot at a problem and you may be surprised -- particularly when the problem has very clear success criteria. This only works if you have the capacity to review what it produces, of course. [...]

This echoes Ethan Mollick's advice to "always invite AI to the table". For programming tasks the "very clear success criteria" is extremely important, as it helps fit the tools-in-a-loop pattern implemented by coding agents such as Claude Code.

LLVM have a policy on AI-assisted contributions which is compatible with Alex's work here:

[...] the LLVM policy is that contributors are permitted to use artificial intelligence tools to produce contributions, provided that they have the right to license that code under the project license. Contributions found to violate this policy will be removed just like any other offending contribution.

While the LLVM project has a liberal policy on AI tool use, contributors are considered responsible for their contributions. We encourage contributors to review all generated code before sending it for review to verify its correctness and to understand it so that they can answer questions during code review.

Back in April Ben Evans put out a call for concrete evidence that LLM tools were being used to solve non-trivial problems in mature open source projects:

I keep hearing #AI boosters / talking heads claiming that #LLMs have transformed software development [...] Share some AI-derived pull requests that deal with non-obvious corner cases or non-trivial bugs from mature #opensource projects.

I think this LLVM optimization definitely counts!

(I also like how this story supports the idea that AI tools amplify existing human expertise rather than replacing it. Alex had previous experience with LLVM, albeit rusty, and could lean on that knowledge to help direct and evaluate Claude's work.)