> entire files with no memory errors

How do you know? I can believe that they didn't show memory errors in a quick test run on a common architecture with a common compiler, much like most human-written code in the training corpus.

▲

jimmaswell 10 hours ago | parent [-]

It wasn't code worth formally verifying, but even your description beats almost any programmer's first pass. With how good it is at finding bugs if you ask it, I have little reason to doubt its output.

	▲	lmm 10 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> even your description beats almost any programmer's first pass Sure, but having access to merely mildly superhuman programming ability still doesn't make using C a good idea.
	▲	DetroitThrow 10 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		In the real world, I'd say the 90% of the C code written is somewhere between "worthwhile to spend extra effort to detect and avoid memory errors" and "worth formally verifying". Sure, for prototype sized codebases it might be able to handle finding mistakes a fresh grad might easily make, or even that memory bugs aren't a big problem - but in my experience it happily adds memory bugs to large codebases and multithreaded code (that I think an experienced human could easily spot tbh).