In functional languages, how is the compiler able to translate non-tail recursion into loops to avoid stack overflows (if at all)? - recursion

Question

I've been recently learning about functional languages and how many don't include for loops. While I don't personally view recursion as more difficult than a for loop (and often easier to reason out) I realized that many examples of recursion aren't tail recursive and therefor cannot use simple tail recursion optimization in order to avoid stack overflows. According to this question, all iterative loops can be translated into recursion, and those iterative loops can be transformed into tail recursion, so it confuses me when the answers on a question like this suggest that you have to explicitly manage the translation of your recursion into tail recursion yourself if you want to avoid stack overflows. It seems like it should be possible for a compiler to do all the translation from either recursion to tail recursion, or from recursion straight to an iterative loop with out stack overflows.
Are functional compilers able to avoid stack overflows in more general recursive cases? Are you really forced to transform your recursive code in order to avoid stack overflows yourself? If they aren't able to perform general recursive stack-safe compilation, why aren't they?

Answer 1

Any recursive function can be converted into a tail recursive one.
For instance, consider the transition function of a Turing machine, that
is the mapping from a configuration to the next one. To simulate the
turing machine you just need to iterate the transition function until
you reach a final state, that is easily expressed in tail recursive
form. Similarly, a compiler typically translates a recursive program into
an iterative one simply adding a stack of activation records.
You can also give a translation into tail recursive form using continuation
passing style (CPS). To make a classical example, consider the fibonacci
function.
This can be expressed in CPS style in the following way, where the second
parameter is the continuation (essentially, a callback function):
def fibc(n, cont):
if n <= 1:
return cont(n)
return fibc(n - 1, lambda a: fibc(n - 2, lambda b: cont(a + b)))
Again, you are simulating the recursion stack using a dynamic data structure:
in this case, lambda abstractions.
The use of dynamic structures (lists, stacks, functions, etc.) in all previous
examples is essential. That is to say, that in order to simulate a generic
recursive function iteratively, you cannot avoid dynamic memory allocation,
and hence you cannot avoid stack overflow, in general.
So, memory consumption is not only related to the iterative/recursive
nature of the program. On the other side, if you prevent dynamic memory
allocation, your
programs are essentially finite state machines, with limited computational
capabilities (more interesting would be to parametrise memory according to
the dimension of inputs).
In general, in the same way as you cannot predict termination, you cannot
predict an unbound memory consumption of your program: working with
a Turing complete language, at compile time
you cannot avoid divergence, and you cannot avoid stack overflow.

Answer 2

Tail Call Optimization:
The natural way to do arguments and calls is to sort out the cleaning up when exiting or when returning.
For tail calls to work you need to alter it so that the tail call inherits the current frame. Thus instead of making a new frame it massages the frame so that the next call returns to the current functions caller instead of this function, which really only cleans up and returns if it's a tail call.
Thus TCO is all about cleaning up before the last call.
Continuation Passing Style - make tail calls out of everything
A compiler can change the code such that it only does primitive operations and pass it to continuations. Thus the stack usage gets moved onto the heap since the computation to be continued is made a function.
An example is:
function hypotenuse(k1, k2) {
return sqrt(add(square(k1), square(k2)))
}
becomes
function hypotenuse(k, k1, k2) {
(function (sk1) {
(function (sk2) {
(function (ar) {
k(sqrt(ar));
}(add(sk1,sk2));
}(square(k2));
}(square(k1));
}
Notice every function has exactly one call now and the order of evaluation is set.

Answer 3

According to this question, all iterative loops can be translated into recursion
"Translated" might be a bit of a stretch. The proof that for every iterative loop there is an equivalent recursive program is trivial if you understand Turing completeness: since a Turing machine can be implemented using strictly iterative structures and strictly recursive structures, every program that can be expressed in an iterative language can be expressed in a recursive language, and vice-versa. This means that for every iterative loop there is an equivalent recursive construct (and the other way around). However, that doesn't mean we have some automated way of transforming one into the other.
and those iterative loops can be transformed into tail recursion
Tail recursion can perhaps be easily transformed into an iterative loop, and the other way around. But not all recursion is tail recursion. Here's an example. Suppose we have some binary tree. It consists of nodes. Each node can have a left and a right child and a value. If a node has no children, then isLeaf returns true for it. We'll assume there's some function max that returns the maximum of two values, and if one of the values is null it returns the other one. Now we want to define a function that finds the maximum value among all the leaf nodes. Here it is in some pseudo-code I cooked up.
findmax(node) {
if (node == null) {
return null
}
if (node.isLeaf) {
return node.value
} else {
return max(findmax(node.left), findmax(node.right))
}
}
There's two recursive calls in the max function, so we can't optimize for tail recursion. We need the results of both before we can supply them to the max function and determine the result of the call for the current node.
Now, there may be a way of getting the same result, using recursion and only a single tail-recursive call. It is functionally equivalent, but it is a different algorithm. Compilers can do a lot of transformations to create a functionally equivalent program with lots of optimizations, but they're not quite clever enough to create functionally equivalent algorithms.
Even the transformation of a function that only calls itself recursively once into a tail-recursive version would be far from trivial. Such an adaptation usually employs some argument passed into the recursive invocation that is used as an "accumulator" for the current results.
Look at the next naive implementation for calculating a factorial of a number (e.g. fact(5) = 5*4*3*2*1):
fact(number) {
if (number == 1) {
return 1
} else {
return number * fact(number - 1)
}
}
It's not tail-recursive. But it can be made so in this way:
fact(number, acc) {
if (number == 1) {
return acc
} else {
return fact(number - 1, number * acc)
}
}
// Helper function
fact(number) {
return fact(number, 1)
}
This requires an interpretation of what is being done. Recognizing the case for stuff like this is easy enough, but what if you call a function instead of a multiplication? How will the compiler know that for the initial call the accumulator must be 1 and not, say, 0? How do you translate this program?
recsub(number) {
if (number == 1) {
return 1
} else {
return number - recsub(number - 1)
}
}
This is as of yet outside the scope of the sort of compiler we have now, and may in fact always be.
Maybe it would be interesting to ask this on the computer science Stack Exchange to see if they know of some papers or proofs that investigate this more in-depth.