[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: .NET CLR? was no subject
Eric Kidd [mailto:email@example.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
It would be really pleasant to be able to generate C in the obvious
style, with no trampolines or stack-munging tricks.