On Aug 25, 2004, at 21:57, S. Ted Sandler wrote:

> Here's a question to those who are "in the know"
> about when the caml compiler eliminates tail-calls.
>
> I wrote the following tail-recursive function
> "listbest", which is supposed to return the "best"
> element of a list (where "best" is determined by the
> behavior of the "compare_fn" that is passed as an
> argument).

[... 2 different versions of listbest ...]

> The difference btwn these 2 defns doesn't seem like
> one that should affect whether they are tail recursive,
> does it?  Thanks in advance for shedding light on this.

I've just tried both versions of listbest on a list
of 50 million elements, and got no stack overflow, either
in bytecode or in native code.

So I guess it's architecture-dependent and it's a variant
of the old "not enough registers on a Pentium" problem.
But how exactly, I don't know.

-- Damien

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners