Re: [PATCH 0/3] Support for mandatory tail calls

2016-05-19 Thread Jason Merrill
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Basile Starynkevitch >> wrote: >>> On 05/19/2016 12:12 AM, Jeff Law wrote:

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Support for mandatory tail calls

2016-05-19 Thread Richard Biener
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Basile Starynkevitch > wrote: >> On 05/19/2016 12:12 AM, Jeff Law wrote: >>> >>> On 05/17/2016 04:01 PM, David Malcolm wrote: There have been requests

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Support for mandatory tail calls

2016-05-19 Thread Jason Merrill
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > On 05/19/2016 12:12 AM, Jeff Law wrote: >> >> On 05/17/2016 04:01 PM, David Malcolm wrote: >>> >>> There have been requests [1] for libgccjit to better support >>> functional programming by supporting the

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Support for mandatory tail calls

2016-05-18 Thread Basile Starynkevitch
On 05/19/2016 12:12 AM, Jeff Law wrote: On 05/17/2016 04:01 PM, David Malcolm wrote: There have been requests [1] for libgccjit to better support functional programming by supporting the contination-passing style, in which every function "returns" by calling a "continuation" function pointer.

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Support for mandatory tail calls

2016-05-18 Thread Jeff Law
On 05/17/2016 04:01 PM, David Malcolm wrote: There have been requests [1] for libgccjit to better support functional programming by supporting the contination-passing style, in which every function "returns" by calling a "continuation" function pointer. These calls must be guaranteed to be