| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v605qd$1hcsi$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 09:13:33 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 55 Message-ID: <v605qd$1hcsi$1@dont-email.me> References: <v5pbjf$55h$1@dont-email.me> <v5r5q9$ekvf$1@dont-email.me> <v5s40h$jvgt$1@dont-email.me> <v5sbpt$1kfbr$2@i2pn2.org> <v5sjsa$msl0$1@dont-email.me> <v5skc9$1kfbr$7@i2pn2.org> <v5smuk$n7a2$1@dont-email.me> <v5sorr$1kfbr$10@i2pn2.org> <v5sp4v$nnko$1@dont-email.me> <v5sr4t$1kfbq$1@i2pn2.org> <v5srjn$o1o0$1@dont-email.me> <v5ssaq$1kfbq$2@i2pn2.org> <v5st66$o7ss$1@dont-email.me> <v5su4q$1kfbr$11@i2pn2.org> <v5sv8o$ogo5$1@dont-email.me> <v5t0h8$1kfbr$12@i2pn2.org> <v5t1af$omq9$1@dont-email.me> <v5t3h4$1kfbr$13@i2pn2.org> <v5t470$t0hj$1@dont-email.me> <v5u2o5$1mj7k$1@i2pn2.org> <v5u8li$12udb$3@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 08:13:34 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6cbec3de6ac24977d66f0a23d8ea26ef"; logging-data="1618834"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Yh5iFWdxN0V6S68E9sdHP" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:LByvrJy6fc1hEC+xajXJpjRoUIw= Bytes: 3592 On 2024-07-01 12:49:54 +0000, olcott said: > On 7/1/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/30/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I had to dumb this down because even the smartest >>>>>>> people here were overwhelmed: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are >>>>>>> correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator >>>>>>> HHH at machine address 0000217a cannot possibly return. >>>>>> >>>>>> But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO DEFINED. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't understand why you so stupidly lie about this. >>>>> >>>>> _DDD() >>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>> >>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an >>>>> emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted. >>>>> >>>> >>>> And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it WILL >>>> return to DDD and it will return also. >>>> >>> >>> How can stopping the emulation the first four >>> instructions of DDD possibly do anything besides stop? >>> >> >> The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but not >> the behavior of the input. > > When DDD is no longer being emulated all of its behavior > stops. DDD is the input. The behaviour specified by DDD is whatever it is, and does not depend on whether it is ever emulated or executed or analyzed. -- Mikko