Re: Tail recursion in Java, was Proper Tail Recursive C++

Dave Lloyd <Dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk>
27 Mar 1997 13:21:58 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Re: Proper Tail Recursive C++ erik.schnetter@student.uni-tuebingen.de (1997-03-21)
Re: Tail recursion in Java, was Proper Tail Recursive C++ danwang@atomic.CS.Princeton.EDU (1997-03-22)
Re: Tail recursion in Java, was Proper Tail Recursive C++ Dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk (Dave Lloyd) (1997-03-27)
Re: Tail recursion in Java, was Proper Tail Recursive C++ ramsdell@linus.mitre.org (John D. Ramsdell) (1997-04-02)
Re: Tail recursion in Java, was Proper Tail Recursive C++ hbaker@netcom.com (1997-04-03)
Re: Tail recursion in Java, was Proper Tail Recursive C++ markt@harlequin.co.uk (1997-05-14)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Dave Lloyd <Dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 27 Mar 1997 13:21:58 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 97-03-129 97-03-136
Keywords: Java, optimize

Daniel Wang <danwang@atomic.CS.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
> With this optimization the call to 'S2' isn't prevented from happening
> since the stack frame of method 'I' disappears and you can't enforce
> at *runtime* the policy as stated. Perhaps there is a secure way to do
> the tail call optimizations, but I don't think anyone's done enough
> thinking to figure out how to get all the details right.


Surely the compiler has to apply the same policy statically as would be
applied dynamically. I see no difficulty here in preventing inline
expansion and tail recursion elimination of insecure methods within a
secure method.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Lloyd mailto:Dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk
Oxford and Cambridge Compilers Ltd http://www.occl-cam.demon.co.uk/
Cambridge, England http://www.chaos.org.uk/~dave/


--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.