home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Offline 2 / NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso / news / comp / lang / c-part2 / 13496 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1996-08-05  |  942 b 
  1. Path: misery.millcomm.com!usenet
  2. From: danhicks@millcomm.com (Dan Hicks)
  3. Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
  4. Subject: Re: C compilers which optimize tail calls (was: GOTO controversy)
  5. Date: 7 Apr 1996 04:46:56 GMT
  6. Organization: Millennium Communications, Inc.
  7. Message-ID: <4k7hc0$965@misery.millcomm.com>
  8. References: <314FB5F5.259B@simi.is> <AD87DB279668D9F74@mcdiala15.it.luc.edu> <ouivfcnaxq.fsf@lynx.cs.byu.edu>
  9. Reply-To: danhicks@millcomm.com
  10. NNTP-Posting-Host: dial-16.roch.millcomm.com
  11. X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 v1.2
  12.  
  13. In <ouivfcnaxq.fsf@lynx.cs.byu.edu>, hall@cs.byu.edu (Kelly Hall) writes:
  14. >    Rickard> All in all, I don't think it's wise to assume that tail
  15. >    Rickard> call optimization is done by the typical C compiler.
  16. >
  17. >I stand corrected.  So why haven't more C compiler folks added this
  18. >useful optimization?
  19.  
  20. Because it's so rarely used (and useful) that it isn't worth the effort.
  21.  
  22. Dan Hicks
  23. http://www.millcomm.com/~danhicks/
  24.  
  25.