magellan-autonomous-discovery-compiler

name

magellan-autonomous-discovery-compiler

description

Evolve compiler optimization heuristics by coupling LLM code generation with evolutionary search and autotuning. Synthesizes executable C++ decision logic that integrates directly into LLVM or other compilers, replacing hand-crafted rules with empirically validated policies. Use when: 'optimize LLVM inlining heuristic', 'evolve compiler pass logic', 'synthesize register allocation priority', 'automate compiler heuristic design', 'generate C++ optimization policy', 'replace hand-tuned compiler rules with learned ones'.

Magellan: Autonomous Discovery of Compiler Optimization Heuristics

This skill enables Claude to design and implement an agentic framework that evolves compiler optimization heuristics through LLM-driven code synthesis combined with evolutionary search and black-box autotuning. Rather than hand-crafting heuristic rules, Claude guides users through building a closed-loop system where an LLM generates candidate C++ decision logic, a compiler toolchain evaluates candidates against real macro-benchmarks, and evolutionary operators refine the population toward heuristics that match or surpass expert baselines -- as demonstrated for LLVM function inlining (5.23% binary-size reduction, 0.61% performance speedup), register allocation, and XLA graph optimization.

When to Use

• When the user wants to replace hand-crafted compiler heuristics with automatically discovered policies
• When optimizing LLVM inlining decisions for binary size reduction or end-to-end performance
• When designing a register allocation priority function for RegAllocGreedy or similar allocators
• When building an evolutionary code-generation loop that synthesizes C++ compiler logic
• When the user needs to automate heuristic search for any compiler pass (LLVM, GCC, XLA, MLIR)
• When creating a framework that couples LLM code generation with benchmark-driven fitness evaluation
• When exploring how to parameterize generated heuristics with tunable constants and run black-box autotuning (e.g., via Vizier or Optuna)

Key Technique

LLM + Evolutionary Search + Autotuning in a Closed Loop. Magellan's core insight is decomposing heuristic discovery into three cooperating subsystems. An LLM coding agent generates candidate C++ decision functions that conform to the compiler's existing API (e.g., InlineAdvisor::getAdviceImpl). These candidates are compiled into the target compiler, evaluated on user-provided macro-benchmarks (measuring metrics like .text section size via llvm-size or wall-clock time via perf stat), and scored. An evolutionary search (AlphaEvolve-style) maintains a population of candidates, applying mutation (LLM-driven code edits within EVOLVE-BLOCK delimiters) and crossover to explore the heuristic space across generations.

Decoupled Structure and Constants. A critical design choice is having the LLM emit a policy template where tunable numerical thresholds are declared as named constants (e.g., TINY_FUNCTION_THRESHOLD, SINGLE_USE_INLINE_BONUS) exposed as compiler flags. This lets the LLM focus on high-level decision logic while a separate black-box autotuner (e.g., Google Vizier) optimizes the constants. This decoupling drops the invalid-sample rate from over 65% (when the LLM proposes full heuristics end-to-end) to only 13%, yielding a 5x reduction in wasted computation. In practice, 10 outer iterations of autotuning with 10 candidate configurations each achieves strong results in roughly 5 hours.

Compact, Integrable Output. The evolved heuristics are production-ready: the best inlining policy is 143 lines of executable C++ logic -- 15x shorter than the 2,115-line manual implementation it replaces. It uses weighted instruction counting with category-based complexity weights, conditional branching on function attributes (AlwaysInline, NoInline, OptimizeForSize, Hot), and type-matching analysis, all expressed through standard LLVM APIs.

Step-by-Step Workflow

1. Identify the target heuristic and its API contract. Locate the compiler decision function to replace (e.g., InlineAdvisor::getAdviceImpl(CallBase &CB) for inlining, or the priority function in RegAllocGreedy for register allocation). Document the function signature, return type, and available input features (callee instruction count, basic block count, function attributes, caller context).

2. Define the evaluation harness and fitness metric. Select macro-benchmarks representative of production workloads (e.g., compiling clang itself with PGO + ThinLTO at -O3). Define the fitness function: .text section size for binary-size optimization, wall-clock time via perf stat for performance, or a weighted combination. Use the final linked binary for measurement, not intermediate object files.

3. Scaffold the policy template with EVOLVE-BLOCK markers. Write a skeleton C++ file that conforms to the compiler's API. Mark the editable region with // EVOLVE-BLOCK-START and // EVOLVE-BLOCK-END delimiters. Declare all tunable numerical thresholds as named constants at the top of the file, exposed as compiler flags (e.g., -mllvm -inline-tiny-threshold=50). This separates structure from constants.

4. Configure the LLM code-generation prompt. Provide the LLM with: (a) the API documentation for available features (38 predefined features for the feature-based variant, or full LLVM API access for the API-based variant), (b) the skeleton template with EVOLVE-BLOCK markers, (c) the optimization objective in natural language, and (d) examples of valid decision logic. Instruct the LLM to emit compilable C++ that respects the function signature.

5. Implement the evolutionary search loop. Initialize a population of candidate heuristics by sampling the LLM multiple times. For each generation: (a) evaluate all candidates by compiling them into the compiler and running benchmarks, (b) rank by fitness score, (c) select parents via tournament or fitness-proportional selection, (d) produce offspring through LLM-driven mutation (prompt the LLM to modify the EVOLVE-BLOCK region of a parent) and crossover (combine logic from two parents).

6. Run black-box autotuning on the best template. After evolutionary search converges on a structural template, freeze the code logic and optimize the named constants using a black-box optimizer (Vizier, Optuna, or similar). Propose batches of 10 hyperparameter configurations per iteration; run 10 outer iterations for size tasks or use batches of 40 for performance tasks where measurement noise is higher.

Concrete Examples

Example 1: Evolving an LLVM Inlining Heuristic for Binary Size

User: "I want to automatically discover an inlining heuristic that minimizes binary size for our production binary."

Approach:

1. Identify target: AEInlineAdvisor::getAdviceImpl(CallBase &CB) in LLVM's inlining pass
2. Define fitness: .text section size of the linked production binary, measured via llvm-size
3. Scaffold the template:

// EVOLVE-BLOCK-START
// Tunable constants (optimized by autotuner)
static constexpr int TINY_FUNCTION_THRESHOLD = 50;    // -mllvm flag
static constexpr int SINGLE_USE_INLINE_BONUS = 80;
static constexpr double COMPLEXITY_WEIGHT_CALL = 1.5;
static constexpr double COMPLEXITY_WEIGHT_BRANCH = 1.2;

std::unique_ptr<InlineAdvice> AEInlineAdvisor::getAdviceImpl(CallBase &CB) {
  Function *Callee = CB.getCalledFunction();
  if (!Callee || Callee->isDeclaration())
    return getDefaultAdvice(CB);

  // Always respect explicit attributes
  if (Callee->hasFnAttribute(Attribute::AlwaysInline))
    return getAdvice(CB, /*ShouldInline=*/true);
  if (Callee->hasFnAttribute(Attribute::NoInline))
    return getAdvice(CB, /*ShouldInline=*/false);

  int InstCount = Callee->getInstructionCount();
  // Weighted cost model with category-based complexity
  double Cost = computeWeightedCost(Callee, COMPLEXITY_WEIGHT_CALL,
                                     COMPLEXITY_WEIGHT_BRANCH);
  bool IsTiny = (InstCount < TINY_FUNCTION_THRESHOLD);
   IsSingleUse = Callee->();

   Bonus = IsSingleUse ? SINGLE_USE_INLINE_BONUS : ;
   ShouldInline = (Cost - Bonus < ());
   (CB, ShouldInline);
}

4. Run evolutionary search for ~50 generations, evaluating each candidate by compiling clang with the heuristic and measuring .text size
5. Autotuning: freeze best template, optimize constants over 10 iterations x 10 configs
6. Expected outcome: 4-6% binary size reduction vs. default LLVM heuristic; 143 lines vs. 2,115 lines in the original

Example 2: Register Allocation Priority Rule

User: "Can we learn a better priority function for LLVM's greedy register allocator?"

Approach:

1. Target the priority-queue policy in RegAllocGreedy that determines live-range processing order
2. Scaffold a priority function that takes live-range features (spill weight, size, number of uses, interference count) and returns a priority score
3. Run evolutionary search with fitness = runtime of a large-scale workload (e.g., SPEC CPU)

// EVOLVE-BLOCK-START
float computeLiveRangePriority(const LiveInterval &LI,
                                const MachineRegisterInfo &MRI) {
  // Evolved priority: features available include
  // LI.weight(), LI.getSize(), number of uses, register class pressure
  float SpillWeight = LI.weight();
  unsigned Size = LI.getSize();
  // LLM discovers the priority logic here
  return SpillWeight;  // Initial seed -- evolved by search
}
// EVOLVE-BLOCK-END

4. Key finding from the paper: evolutionary search may converge to a constant-value policy, revealing that insertion order alone (not a complex priority function) suffices for strong performance. This is a genuine discovery -- the framework can surface non-obvious simplifications.

Example 3: XLA Graph Rewriting Heuristic

User: "We want to optimize extraction policies for equality saturation in our XLA-based compiler."

Approach:

1. Formulate as selecting an optimized graph from an e-graph produced by equality saturation
2. Define fitness: end-to-end execution time of the extracted computation graph
3. The LLM generates a cost-model function that scores candidate extractions
4. Evolutionary search + autotuning discovers policies achieving ~7% improvement over manual baselines
5. This demonstrates the framework's portability beyond LLVM with minimal engineering overhead

Best Practices

• Do: Decouple decision logic from numerical constants. Have the LLM generate the code structure while a black-box autotuner optimizes thresholds. This reduces invalid samples from 65% to 13%.
• Do: Use macro-benchmarks (full application builds) rather than microbenchmarks for fitness evaluation. Measure the final linked binary, not intermediate compilation units.
• Do: Seed performance-oriented search with a policy already optimized for size. Starting from scratch for performance tasks often plateaus at regressions; seeding with a good size policy provides a better starting point.
• Do: Mark editable regions with explicit EVOLVE-BLOCK delimiters so the LLM modifies only the heuristic logic, not surrounding compiler infrastructure.
• Avoid: Letting the LLM jointly propose both code structure and numerical constants in a single shot. This produces a 65%+ rate of non-compiling or degenerate candidates.
• Avoid: Evaluating on random function samples rather than full application builds. Per-function metrics don't capture cross-function interactions (e.g., inlining decisions affect downstream optimizations).

Error Handling

• Non-compiling candidates: Wrap each candidate evaluation in a compilation check. If the modified compiler fails to build, assign the worst possible fitness score and discard. Track the invalid rate per generation -- if it exceeds 30%, simplify the EVOLVE-BLOCK interface or add more constraints to the LLM prompt.
• Correctness regressions: Run the compiler's test suite (check-all for LLVM) after each candidate. Any test failure means the candidate is invalid regardless of its fitness score. Compiler heuristics affect only optimization quality, not correctness -- but bugs in generated code can violate this invariant.
• Fitness noise in performance measurements: Use multiple benchmark runs (3-5 repetitions) and take the median. For performance-sensitive tasks, use larger autotuning batches (40 configs instead of 10) to compensate for measurement variance.
• Search stagnation: If fitness plateaus for 10+ generations, inject diversity by re-sampling fresh candidates from the LLM, expanding the feature set (e.g., from 38 predefined features to full API access), or increasing the mutation rate.

Limitations

• Requires a working compiler build system. Each candidate evaluation involves a full compiler rebuild and benchmark run. This is computationally expensive (the paper reports 1.5 days for sequential exploration, ~5 hours with autotuning for 10 iterations). Infrastructure for distributed builds significantly accelerates the loop.
• Macro-benchmark dependency. The evolved heuristic is only as good as the benchmark it optimizes against. Overfitting to a single benchmark is a real risk -- always validate on held-out workloads and test temporal/domain generalization.
• LLVM API surface complexity. The full API-based variant (giving the LLM access to arbitrary LLVM APIs) produces better results than the feature-based variant but is harder to prompt correctly. Start with the constrained feature-based approach before graduating to full API access.
• Not a replacement for correctness-critical logic. This approach works for optimization heuristics where any valid decision is correct (just possibly suboptimal). It is not suitable for compiler passes where incorrect decisions produce wrong code.
• LLM-dependent. The quality of evolved heuristics depends on the LLM's ability to generate valid C++ that uses compiler APIs correctly. Stronger code-generation models produce better initial populations and more productive mutations.

Reference

Magellan: Autonomous Discovery of Novel Compiler Optimization Heuristics with AlphaEvolve (Chen et al., 2026). Focus on Section 3 (framework architecture), Section 4.1 (inlining heuristic synthesis with EVOLVE-BLOCK structure and autotuning decoupling), and Section 4.3 (the surprising constant-priority finding in register allocation). The key quantitative takeaway: 143 lines of evolved C++ outperform 2,115 lines of hand-crafted LLVM inlining logic.