Re: sibcall/tailcall terminology

[Andreas Bauer <baueran at in dot tum dot de>]

> Proposal A:
> I propose that we use "tail call" to mean (3)
> and "sibling call" to mean (2).
> 
> As a consequence:
> 	- sibcall.c should renamed tailcall.c
> 	- -foptimize-sibling-calls should be renamed -foptimize-tail-calls
> 	  (or perhaps -foptimize-tailcalls?)
> 	- try_tail_call in calls.c should be renamed try_sibling_call
> 
> Proposal B:
> Alternatively, we could use "sibling call" to mean (3)
> and "tail call" to mean (2).  In that case:
> 	- OK_FOR_SIBCALL should be renamed OK_FOR_TAILCALL
> 	- sibcall_epilogue should be renamed tailcall_epilogue
> 	etc.
> 
> I prefer Proposal A.

I prefer proposal B, sort of.  What I have done in my patch (which, of
course is not part of current GCC) and my current work is rename some
flags and variables to reflect the subtle difference between sibcalls,
tail calls in general, and tail recursive calls.  IMHO, that's enough
to understand the sources and no one needs to rename the files.

And yes, I'm also getting confused whether I should use tailcalls,
tail-calls, and TAILCALL or TAIL_CALL, etc.  :-)

Andi.