So, can the TCO elimination pass actually perform TCO for mutually recursive methods and the compiler just isn't phrasing method invocations in a compatible way? Also, better method inlining support is awesome, but my intuition tells me that there isn't a lot of overlap between implementing TCO and inlining. Laurent, is there something I can learn from this? :)
Best, Jeremy On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:50 PM, MacRuby <ruby-nore...@macosforge.org> wrote: > #528: Improve Tail Call Elimination > > -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- > Reporter: haruki.zae...@… | Owner: lsansone...@… > Type: enhancement | Status: new > Priority: minor | Milestone: > Component: MacRuby | Keywords: tail call elimination > optimisation tco > > -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- > > Comment(by haruki.zae...@…): > > Replying to [comment:13 lsansone...@…]: > > We should be able to do much more sophisticated tall call elimination > with the new VM changes I'm working on (which allow method inlining). I > will investigate that, for 0.6. > > Sounds great. My C++ is 15 years old so I suspect I'm of no help. Thanks > for listening anyway :) > > -- > Ticket URL: <http://www.macruby.org/trac/ticket/528#comment:14> > MacRuby <http://macruby.org/> > >
_______________________________________________ MacRuby-devel mailing list MacRuby-devel@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macruby-devel
