home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca!not-for-mail
- From: c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca (Kazimir Kylheku)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.apl
- Subject: Re: GOTO controversy
- Date: 22 Mar 1996 11:13:18 -0800
- Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
- Message-ID: <4iuu4eINNle@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>
- References: <314FB5F5.259B@simi.is> <3151B47F.70FD@connix.com> <4isrhqINNpol@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> <NICKB.96Mar22141650@abel.harlqn.co.uk>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca
-
- In article <NICKB.96Mar22141650@abel.harlqn.co.uk>,
- Nick Barnes <nickb@harlequin.co.uk> wrote:
- >In article <4isrhqINNpol@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca (Kazimir Kylheku) writes:
- >
- > recursion! ouch! I'd hate to do a no_loop(1,1000000000);
- >
- >Only because you are not familiar with compilers which perform
- >tail-recursion elimination.
-
- Actually I am, but I overlooked that.
-
- By the way, some of those compilers will not eliminate the recursion if you
- don't turn on the optimization flag. The programmer is making the correct
- execution of the code depend on his expectation that the tail recursion will be
- eliminated by the compiler, instead of eliminating it himself. A large loop
- will blow the stack without the presence optimization, or use an inordinate
- amount of memory.
- --
-
-