On Thu 07 Apr 2011 16:37, Noah Lavine writes:
> So I guess the question is, is it worthwhile for us to fix GCC so it
> can handle tail calls, or should we use another code generation
> library that already deals with them? I must admit I still really like
> the idea of using GCC, because it has a
Hello,
> Regarding GCC, I have spoken to GCC folk, and they are not averse to
> making GCC into a more modular thing. There are obvious licensing
> concerns, but these are surmountable: Guile and GCC could work together
> somehow. The problem, as I understood it last year, was that GCC
> doesn't
Ah, I see. The problem is quite significant.
I found this page in the GCC internals documentation:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Tail-Calls.html. It seems to
suggest that we would need to make our own calling convention.
So I guess the question is, is it worthwhile for us to fix GCC so it
Noah Lavine writes:
>> There is one _very_ serious problem with using GCC to compile Scheme, or
>> at least there was the last time I researched this issue: tail calls.
>
> I might be wrong about this, but I thought that GCC supported multiple
> calling conventions, with the user telling GCC which
