Anything to do with tail calls in WASM is likely to be completely irrelevant to proper tail calls in ECMAScript: they’ll be separate pieces of code with differe

Anything to do with tail calls in WASM is likely to be completely irrelevant to proper tail calls in ECMAScript: they’ll be separate pieces of code with different reasons and balances. Moreover, tail call elimination is explicit in WASM. The initially-defined call and call_indirect instructions aren’t allowed to do tail call elimination, and the tail-call proposal added return_call or return_call_indirect which require it. The situation is thus more like the (now inactive) TC39 Syntactic Tail Calls proposal. No need to worry about the debugging or performance implications. > Firefox complained that it was work, but they’re also doing it for wasm. They said it was impossible to implement across realms with their membrane-based security model. That is: “we could do it in most cases, but you’ve said we have to do it in all cases and we can’t do that without replacing a fundamental and pervasive part of our engine, which we certainly don’t want to do for something we and others aren’t convinced is even a good idea”. But in WASM, any tail calls are to the same WASM program, where this isn’t a problem.