Hi, I am sorry for using the wrong terminology here. Let me ask again: Does it sound reasonable to extend the compiler with a pragma that specifies that a certain function should be compiled to a loop? And if the compiler can not do it, it helps with some error message.
Regards!
Georg
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 16:20, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> | However my point was more on a semantic point of view: If I write a
> | function in a recursive way, but actually do nothing else than a loop, I
> | would like a) that the compiler unrolls it to a loop and
> | b) that I can specify such a requirement, while violating it emits an
> | error.
>
> What does it mean to say "the compiler unrolls it to a loop". If GHC sees
> a tail recursive function, it certainly compiles it to a loop! (But that's
> not called "unrolling".)
>
> Simon
--
---- Georg Martius, Tel: +49 177 6413311 -----
------- http://www.flexman.homeip.net ----------
pgpKZBiGzBk4f.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
