* Remi Forax: >> I would be surprised if tail calls give more flexibility. Usually >> it's the opposite, the mini-interpreter wins in terms of flexibility: >> >> <http://www.enyo.de/fw/notes/tail-calls.html> > > This trick can work with a lexer because usually you don't keep states > between each recognized tokens, it's harder to use the same trick with > a parser or an interpreter.
I think the Go lexer from which this is derived has quite a bit of state (not just the input position). The state is global, so it might not apply in a scenario where you use tail calls combined with massive concurrency, but I don't think that's the interesting case anyway. >> The mini-interpreter turns direct calls into difficult-to-predict >> indirect calls. This could be a drawback. But optimizing that is >> probably not much more difficult than a general implementation of hard >> tail calls. > > no, I don't think so because as you said direct calls are not hard to > predict. Is implementing efficient hard tail calls on the JVM really *that* easy? _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
