efriedma added a comment. All "tail" needs to mean is "this call does not reference the current function's stack." That's all, no more or less.
The relevant documentation and APIs are a bit confusing. A "tail" marking is a prerequisite for tailcall optimization, but it's not really related to any of the other prerequisites for tailcall optimization. Dropping the "tail" marking just because the call isn't in a tail position would involve a bunch of work adding and removing "tail" markings, for no benefit. It makes sense to teach tail recursion elimination not to depend so heavily on tail markings. But I don't think that implies we want to mess with the markings themselves. > I think the confusion happened exactly because "tail" marking was done for > all calls(not for the real tailcalls). I don't think there's any confusion here. It's just using the tail markings as a conservative estimate of capturing because it has to compute them anyway. And TRE in general is simplistic code that nobody has spent much time looking at in a long time. There are very few TRE opportunities in C/C++ code anyway. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D82085/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D82085 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
