Re: forcing tail/sibling call optimization

[dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)]

<<  I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here.  It's still
my position that we shouldn't introduce an extension for the tail-call
stuff, because I don't view the translation of functional languages
into C as fundamentally the right way to go.  It would be so much
better to write a Scheme front-end for GCC -- and I would totally
support, then, providing a bit on CALL_EXPRs to force tailcalls.
Presumably, the Scheme front-end would set this bit.
>>

Mark, you might disagree, but the approach of translating into C in cases
like this is VERY well established, and is pretty much a standard 
technique. It is not so terrible to say, sorry, gcc cannot support your
needs, but it seems a bit gratuitious to say, sorry, gcc won't support
your needs, because we think you are doing the wrong thing.

So anyway, add me to the list of disagreers here, but as you say, 
no big deal that people disagree on this :-)