search for: jumpee

...'t capture the local, it would still prohibit TCE. This > contain seems unnecessary and overly limiting? I think it's a necessary limitation. The idea is that something marked 'tail' could be emitted as a jump instruction instead of a call instruction. In order to do that, the jumpee has to 'ret' to the same place our function would have returned to. Since the return value is the current top-of-the-stack value when returning[1], the jumper must remove any local variables -- in LLVM, allocas -- from the stack before jumping. This implies that the jumpee may not acces...

...ld still prohibit TCE. This >>> contain seems unnecessary and overly limiting? >> I think it's a necessary limitation. The idea is that something marked >> 'tail' could be emitted as a jump instruction instead of a call >> instruction. In order to do that, the jumpee has to 'ret' to the same >> place our function would have returned to. Since the return value is the >> current top-of-the-stack value when returning[1], the jumper must remove >> any local variables -- in LLVM, allocas -- from the stack before >> jumping. This impli...

Hi, I was looking into the implementation of TailRecursionElimination, and noticed that we have the constrain that if any call uses a local, even though it doesn't capture the local, it would still prohibit TCE. This contain seems unnecessary and overly limiting? Relevant code is here: