Re: Computer beats Kasparov

[l117593@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com (Cordes MJ)]

Robert Dewar (dewar@cs.nyu.edu) wrote with deletions:

: Well the issue of whether the code generator "uses AI" (whatever the
: heck that might mean) is a red herring.

: The issue is whether the code generated is "reviewable" in the sens
: of annex H of the RM. Achieving reviewability may involve inhibiting
: some optiizations (regardless of how they are done).
"Reviewable" in the sense of annex H of the RM will help identify areas
in the generated code where the implementation has done something 
worthy of "inspection" (e.g., run-time checks and calls to run-time
support routines). However, it really doesn't say anything about the 
correctness of the code (i.e., generated code).

As for inhibiting optimizations, I can't afford to turn off optimizations
(e.g., code hoisting techniques) simply to make my Ada/assembly 
interspersed listing easier to read. Although supporting "reviewable"
greatly improves our ability to identify unsafe code, the proof that
a program is actually safe still requires tests on the execution of
the code.

In any event, your first statement is true, it does not matter if the 
code was generated by Deep Blue, one of todays CGs, or by hand. Reviewability
(and I'll include testability in this) is the issue.


--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J Cordes
Phone: (817) 935-3823
Fax:   (817) 935-3800
EMail: CordesMJ@lfwc.lockheed.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------