[xyzzy_plugh]

All other arguments aside... Yes, people do review compiler output, all the time in fact!

When optimizing code it's not unusual to look at the assembly. It's not unusual to look for opportunities for autovectorization or to verify inlining or loop unrolling.

Compilers are, for the most part, deterministic. This means after people have reviewed the output, it's unlikely to change. It also means if they do change, only a few people are required to notice.

None of this applies to LLMs. They are worse than compilers, in regards to the quality and characteristics of their output, in every possible way.

If no one reviewed compiler output then https://godbolt.org/ wouldn't exist.

[janice1999]

Same goes for linker output, especially in embedded dev.

[pjmlp]

Not really, people that argue about assembly on Godbolt tend to be the specimens that the site was created for, those that count CPU cycles per Assembly instrution and are religious about which programming language syntax generates the less amount of Assembly opcodes.

The rest of us uses it because it is cool way to share code snippets.

[CamperBob2]

All other arguments aside... Yes, people do review compiler output, all the time in fact!

No. In reality, this is almost never done anymore.

We used to do it all the time back when performance mattered, but that was then.

HN readers don't have to like it, and obviously they (we) don't, but shooting the messenger won't help.

[xyzzy_plugh]

In my circles we're actually doing it even more because we can have an LLM take a look at the assembly.

[CamperBob2]

Your circles are... rarefied.