Zero-sized stack frames?

This function infinitely recurses and overflows the stack:

fn print_forever() {

But I'm curious a to what's actually in that stack frame that take up space. AFAIK, there are no local variables (I don't think println expands to contain any, and the string is a constant), no parameters, no return value. The mental model I have is: if I was writing a struct to represent the stack frame for this function, it seems like it would be zero-sized. So why does this function still overflow?

Looking at it another way, I guess the question is also: "why can't it be optimised to just a syscall and a jump"? It strikes me as pretty similar to the classic 10 PRINT "hello"; 20 GOTO 10 BASIC programs, which of course have no such limitation.

Is this a limitation in rustc? LLVM? Or am I misunderstanding something (I presume it's this one :grin: ). Is it actually guaranteed semantics that a function like this will overflow and this sort of optimization is therefore "incorrect"?

P.S. Is there a way to visualise what the stack frame for some function would look like?

Thanks :grin:

1 Like

Well, you'd need to still store the "return address". That's 8 bytes per call.
The way function calls work on x86 is as follows - a call instruction pushes the offset of the next instruction (next pc) onto the stack, then jumps to the function. Why do we need this? Because when we do a ret instruction, we need to know where to return to.
On RISC architectures such as ARM or MIPS, there is a "link-register", to store the return address. But for recursive functions, the old contents of the link register needs to be saved on the stack before storing the new value there.


Every stack frame would consist of at least the return address, so that the program can continue after returning from the function.

It can - see tail-call optimization. This is just not guaranteed in Rust, but there are languages without explicit loops which guarantee this (mainly purely functional ones).


On my laptop and on Godbolt, the optimized version does happen to get tail-call optimization applied and the code just loops. But as @Cerber-Ursi said, it's not guaranteed in Rust.

Relatedly, Rust does have a keyword (become) reserved for explicit tail calls, but as far as I know it doesn't have a champion and hasn't seen movement in quite some time.

1 Like

Well, it doesn't in release mode. You can see in that it's just a loop.

But no, there's no guaranteed tail recursion in rust. LLVM will optimize things to that sometimes, but you must not rely on it. Maybe one day we'll get become -- the keyword's already reserved for it.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. We invite you to open a new topic if you have further questions or comments.