home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: mail2news.demon.co.uk!genesis.demon.co.uk
- From: Lawrence Kirby <fred@genesis.demon.co.uk>
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.c
- Subject: Re: GOTO controversy
- Date: Thu, 04 Apr 96 22:13:55 GMT
- Organization: none
- Message-ID: <828656035snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>
- References: <314FB5F5.259B@simi.is> <3151B47F.70FD@connix.com> <oun34tm3c7.fsf@lynx.cs.byu.edu>
- Reply-To: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
- X-NNTP-Posting-Host: genesis.demon.co.uk
- X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
- X-Mail2News-Path: genesis.demon.co.uk
-
- In article <oun34tm3c7.fsf@lynx.cs.byu.edu> hall@cs.byu.edu "Kelly Hall" writes:
-
- >>>>>> "Lawrence" == Lawrence Kirby <fred@genesis.demon.co.uk> writes:
- > Lawrence> An O(log N) stack depth is generally not a problem. I
- > Lawrence> guess you could say that is finite because there are
- > Lawrence> typically practical upper bounds to N.
- >
- >Tail recursion is implemented by all non-stupid compilers the same way
- >as the imperative (goto) version. Gcc will do this, whether or not
- >your favorite compiler will is a different matter.
- >
- >No stack problems at all.
-
- Code that relies on compiler optimisations (which C doesn't guarantee) to
- even work at all is at best highly suspect and at worst plain broken. In
- some cases it is company policy to compile with optimisations turned off,
- this should not cause code to blow up.
-
- --
- -----------------------------------------
- Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
- Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
- -----------------------------------------
-