DIP: Tail call optimization

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 16:18:47 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
> Previous discussion seems to favour @unboundedStack as it can 
> become a requirement to go beyond the stack-size-safe 
> operations effectibly tracking where stack overflow may happen 
> and encourage detailed review of those functions.

I would favour it, but I am not a DMD developer ;-)

> Walter's concern is that a great amount of the D runtime 
> library would make this unpractical. Maybe another attribute to 
> promise bounded stack without a proof might be required to make 
> the idea viable.
> I really think that this kinds of proofs are somewhat natural 
> in D, as it follows ideas like contracts, and safe/trusted 
> attributes.

Yes. Although keep in mind that DMD does not have a shared 
intermediate representation, so each backend probably might have 
to implement it over a low level SSA which may or may not be 
suitable. So, if they have to implement 3 different versions of 
it for DMD, LDC and GDC what are then the chances that this will 
pass?

Contrast this to a language like Whiley which has an intermediate 
representation geared towards theorem-proving.

Would D benefit from a shared intermediate representation 
suitable for static analysis? Sure. But you probably need more 
than a single feature-request to get there.