Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH --- Correct Emulation Defined
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 11:16:49 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <vrgme1$2tr56$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 10:16:51 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="07eb843a3e8d1b9262ebd76c548f87cc";
	logging-data="3075238"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18h3hTsQkpa6Iz/hthXEYrS"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RD47CAPd9miCpqaQu6vAbRxXlE0=
Bytes: 1903

On 2025-03-20 02:32:43 +0000, olcott said:

> 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]
> 
> When N steps of DDD are emulated by HHH according
> to the semantics of the x86 language then these
> N steps are emulated correctly.

That does not make much sense to define the correct emulation of DDD as
it should mean whatever "correct emulation" means when applied to DDD.

Althouth promised otherwise on the subject line the meaning of "DDD
correctly emulated by HHH" when N is not specified is not defined.

The term should be or include "partial emulation" when the intent is
that an emulation that could be continued is not is called "correct".

-- 
Mikko