<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Lambda-lifting and CPS conversion in an imperative language · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1202.3247/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1202.3247/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Lambda-lifting and CPS conversion in an imperative language — mentioned by antonvs</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26911987</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1202.3247:26911987</guid><pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2021 07:20:58 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;The insight in the Kelsey paper I linked is that SSA and CPS are essentially equivalent. SSA is more or less CPS expressed at a kind of lower level, more like a bytecode. So one answer to the question is that all SSA compilers are already using a form of CPS. If you wanted to use traditional CPS explicitly, you&amp;#x27;d need a transformation step that converts the imperative source code into a more functional intermediate form so that it can be CPS&amp;#x27;d. There might be benefits to that, since CPS can be easier to analyze than SSA. But I&amp;#x27;m not aware of any real imperative compilers that do it. There&amp;#x27;s…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1202.3247/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.PL</category></item></channel></rss>
