Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Addressing Compiler Errors: Stack Overflow or Large Language Models?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2307.10793 v1 pith:GFENWCKU submitted 2023-07-20 cs.SE

classification cs.SE
keywords compileroverflowstackerrorerrorslanguagelargemessages
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Compiler error messages serve as an initial resource for programmers dealing with compilation errors. However, previous studies indicate that they often lack sufficient targeted information to resolve code issues. Consequently, programmers typically rely on their own research to fix errors. Historically, Stack Overflow has been the primary resource for such information, but recent advances in large language models offer alternatives. This study systematically examines 100 compiler error messages from three sources to determine the most effective approach for programmers encountering compiler errors. Factors considered include Stack Overflow search methods and the impact of model version and prompt phrasing when using large language models. The results reveal that GPT-4 outperforms Stack Overflow in explaining compiler error messages, the effectiveness of adding code snippets to Stack Overflow searches depends on the search method, and results for Stack Overflow differ significantly between Google and StackExchange API searches. Furthermore, GPT-4 surpasses GPT-3.5, with "How to fix" prompts yielding superior outcomes to "What does this error mean" prompts. These results offer valuable guidance for programmers seeking assistance with compiler error messages, underscoring the transformative potential of advanced large language models like GPT-4 in debugging and opening new avenues of exploration for researchers in AI-assisted programming.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. CompilerGPT: Leveraging Large Language Models for Analyzing and Acting on Compiler Optimization Reports

    cs.PL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An open-source framework in which GPT-4o or Claude reads Clang/GCC optimization reports and iteratively rewrites C++ code, achieving up to 6.5x speedups on some benchmarks but not consistently.

  2. DPO-F+: Aligning Code Repair Feedback with Developers' Preferences

    cs.SE 2025-11 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    DPO-f+ fine-tunes LLMs with reward-augmented DPO to generate developer-profile-aware code-repair feedback, claiming gains over DPO that rest on LLM-judge evaluations.

Pith tools