• bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> Feb 02 2012
• "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> Feb 02 2012

bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Timon Gehr:

 This is not a tail-recursive function. And neither is recFactorial, my 
 bad. Anyway, my point was that the compiler should not generate code 
 that blows up on a (in principle) perfectly sane implementation.


Is it possible to create a function attribute like  tail_recursive that
produces a compile error if you apply it to a function that's not
tail-recursive?

Bye,
bearophile

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

On Thursday, February 02, 2012 18:17:36 bearophile wrote:
 Timon Gehr:
 This is not a tail-recursive function. And neither is recFactorial, my
 bad. Anyway, my point was that the compiler should not generate code
 that blows up on a (in principle) perfectly sane implementation.


 Is it possible to create a function attribute like  tail_recursive that
 produces a compile error if you apply it to a function that's not
 tail-recursive?


I suspect that Walter would feel the same way about that that he feels about 
something like marking functions as inline - i.e. that sort of thing should be 
left up to the compiler to optimize or not as it sees appropriate.

- Jonathan M Davis