🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4000013@eecs.nwu.edu> gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore) writes:
./ comp.lang.misc / nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) / Mar 11, 1988 /
..
..[...] NOT ALL FUNCTIONS ARE INLINEABLE!!  Any function
..that can be called recursively (see my above definition of recursive) an
..unknown (at compile/link time) number of times cannot be inlined!!
.
.It can, if it can be converted to iteration, and a stack is maintained for its
.scope.  (There is no reason to expect local objects and return addresses to be
.on the same stack, is there?)

For the circumstances where you must keep a stack around for local objects,
what efficiency do you get for inlining vs. calling??  It seems to me that
all you are doing is replacing a push and a pop with a jump.  For this
reason, I do not believe that converting to iteration (such as optimizing
tail recursive functions) is true inlining.  In this case, we are not
eliminating the calling mechanism, we are just changing its' name.
-- 
 _ __			NEVIN J. LIBER	..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1	(312) 510-6194
' )  )				"The secret compartment of my ring I fill
 /  / _ , __o  ____		 with an Underdog super-energy pill."
/  (_</_\/ <__/ / <_	These are solely MY opinions, not AT&T's, blah blah blah