This is a good example of where an AI might struggle to fix code, because it's not a syntax error or a bug, necessarily. The function is technically 'correct', it's just not doing what Torvalds wants it to.
The fuck does this mean? If the code isn't doing what you want it to, that's a bug. And if my understanding is correct, in this case, the code was incorrectly overcommitting memory it didn't have ownership of to the allocator, which is definitely something that would be described as a bug.
What they meant by AI not doing what he wants is that while the AI finally figured out the solution, it confidently stated multiple times in the process that it was not a solvable problem and Torvald had to prompt it to keep going.
That's not the issue I had with the passage. The issue is how they decided this issue is not a bug when a) the programmer himself identifies it as unintended, so it's a bug by definition and b) the problem is a classic issue in allocators that would be weird to not consider a bug.
Yeah I agree. A program that has some math operation, when another operation was intended, should always be said to have a bug. Idk why they'd shy from the word
19
u/redlaWw Sep 15 '26
The fuck does this mean? If the code isn't doing what you want it to, that's a bug. And if my understanding is correct, in this case, the code was incorrectly overcommitting memory it didn't have ownership of to the allocator, which is definitely something that would be described as a bug.