I compiled the following code using `clang` and `gcc` and called both with `-O3`:

```
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

static void a(int n) {
  if (n == 0) return;

  printf("descending; a=%i\n", n);
  a(n-1);
}

int main() {
  a(5);
  return 0;
}

```

Here is the main function `gcc` generated (without NOPs at the end):

```
08048310 <main>:
 8048310:   55                      push   %ebp
 8048311:   89 e5                   mov    %esp,%ebp
 8048313:   83 e4 f0                and    $0xfffffff0,%esp
 8048316:   83 ec 10                sub    $0x10,%esp
 8048319:   c7 44 24 04 05 00 00    movl   $0x5,0x4(%esp)
 8048320:   00 
 8048321:   c7 04 24 14 85 04 08    movl   $0x8048514,(%esp)
 8048328:   e8 c7 ff ff ff          call   80482f4 <printf@plt>
 804832d:   c7 44 24 04 04 00 00    movl   $0x4,0x4(%esp)
 8048334:   00 
 8048335:   c7 04 24 14 85 04 08    movl   $0x8048514,(%esp)
 804833c:   e8 b3 ff ff ff          call   80482f4 <printf@plt>
 8048341:   c7 44 24 04 03 00 00    movl   $0x3,0x4(%esp)
 8048348:   00 
 8048349:   c7 04 24 14 85 04 08    movl   $0x8048514,(%esp)
 8048350:   e8 9f ff ff ff          call   80482f4 <printf@plt>
 8048355:   c7 44 24 04 02 00 00    movl   $0x2,0x4(%esp)
 804835c:   00 
 804835d:   c7 04 24 14 85 04 08    movl   $0x8048514,(%esp)
 8048364:   e8 8b ff ff ff          call   80482f4 <printf@plt>
 8048369:   c7 44 24 04 01 00 00    movl   $0x1,0x4(%esp)
 8048370:   00 
 8048371:   c7 04 24 14 85 04 08    movl   $0x8048514,(%esp)
 8048378:   e8 77 ff ff ff          call   80482f4 <printf@plt>
 804837d:   31 c0                   xor    %eax,%eax
 804837f:   c9                      leave  
 8048380:   c3                      ret    

```

And here's the one from `clang`:

```
080483d0 <main>:
 80483d0:   55                      push   %ebp
 80483d1:   89 e5                   mov    %esp,%ebp
 80483d3:   56                      push   %esi
 80483d4:   83 ec 0c                sub    $0xc,%esp
 80483d7:   be 05 00 00 00          mov    $0x5,%esi
 80483dc:   8d 74 26 00             lea    0x0(%esi,%eiz,1),%esi
 80483e0:   89 74 24 04             mov    %esi,0x4(%esp)
 80483e4:   c7 04 24 e0 84 04 08    movl   $0x80484e0,(%esp)
 80483eb:   e8 04 ff ff ff          call   80482f4 <printf@plt>
 80483f0:   4e                      dec    %esi
 80483f1:   75 ed                   jne    80483e0 <main+0x10>
 80483f3:   31 c0                   xor    %eax,%eax
 80483f5:   83 c4 0c                add    $0xc,%esp
 80483f8:   5e                      pop    %esi
 80483f9:   5d                      pop    %ebp
 80483fa:   c3                      ret    

```

My question is: Is there a good reason why they both generate code that writes the address of the static string on the stack over and over again? For example, why doesn't the code `clang` generates look like this instead?

```
080483d0 <main>:
 80483d0:   55                      push   %ebp
 80483d1:   89 e5                   mov    %esp,%ebp
 80483d3:   56                      push   %esi
 80483d4:   83 ec 0c                sub    $0xc,%esp
 80483d7:   be 05 00 00 00          mov    $0x5,%esi
 80483dc:   8d 74 26 00             lea    0x0(%esi,%eiz,1),%esi
 80483e0:   c7 04 24 e0 84 04 08    movl   $0x80484e0,(%esp)
 80483e7:   89 74 24 04             mov    %esi,0x4(%esp)
 80483eb:   e8 04 ff ff ff          call   80482f4 <printf@plt>
 80483f0:   4e                      dec    %esi
 80483f1:   xx xx                   jne    80483e7 <main+0x17>
 80483f3:   31 c0                   xor    %eax,%eax
 80483f5:   83 c4 0c                add    $0xc,%esp
 80483f8:   5e                      pop    %esi
 80483f9:   5d                      pop    %ebp
 80483fa:   c3                      ret    

```