An hour and a half ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> [...] Later, the `ret' to return from the non-tail call would
> confuse the processor and caused stalls, because the `ret' it wasn't
> matched with its `call'. It's easy enough to put the return address
> in place using `call' when setting up a frame, which exposes the
> right nesting to the processor.
Does this mean that the code was correct, only it followed a pattern
that is not commonly produced by most compilers?
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
