Re: .NET CLR? was no subject

["Krishnaswami, Neel" <address@hidden>]

Eric Kidd [mailto:eric.kidd@pobox.com] wrote:
> 
> The 'tail.' instruction prefix is *seriously* nice, especially for LISP
> and Scheme hackers.  On the downside, you pretty much have to live with
> a standard stack frame, which makes it harder to implement multiple
> values cleanly.

This reminds me: can GCC be forced to make a tail call? gcc 3.0 has 
some pretty good support for cross-function tail calls, and I was 
wondering if there were either any GNU C extensions to force a tail 
call, or if there was some other gcc-supported language that had 
that. 

It would be really pleasant to be able to generate C in the obvious 
style, with no trampolines or stack-munging tricks. 

--
Neel Krishnaswami
neelk@cswcasa.com