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