Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 7:26 PM +0100 11/11/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>>Patch is probably ready tomorrow. > Cool. I think I'd like to skip having to specify the -Oc flag, > though, and add explicit syntax to PIR. Do we really need it? Are there wicked cases, where we could misdetect a tail call? As far as I know is any sequence looking like: ... (a,b) = foo(...) .return (a,b) .end a tail call. That is the call to a function immediately followed by a return, which is the last operation of that function, has the same return value(s) as the actual return. At least that's what the code with -Oc is checking now. > ... Double-colons before > the opening parenthesis or something. Foo::(). That's looking too much like some kind of perlish class thingy. Why not just: .return-> foo(args) # "return trough" token leo