Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR--- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 09:01:31 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 73 Message-ID: References: <4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org> <27b6da57f540cd39d2918411d8c94789678e3f45@i2pn2.org> <24c66a3611456f6a6969dc132fd8a227b26cbcbd@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 15:01:34 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1b0b8b860f597ad74dffc25f0321f499"; logging-data="1462802"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18MPP88QNjt1eAm8+YKzMJ/" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:1S9Y1X0CoAYL7vgWwH+aRzfAaBU= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250310-6, 3/10/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4523 On 3/10/2025 4:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 09.mrt.2025 om 14:11 schreef olcott: >> On 3/9/2025 4:05 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 08.mrt.2025 om 18:47 schreef olcott: >>>> On 3/8/2025 9:41 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 08.mrt.2025 om 15:09 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 3/8/2025 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-03-07 15:11:53 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >> >> >> _DD() >> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping >> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping >> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local >> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD >> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD) >> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04 >> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax >> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 >> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f >> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d >> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04] >> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp >> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp >> [00002155] c3         ret >> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155] >> >> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach >> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally >> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation. >> > > Why repeating things we agree with? We agree that HHH correctly reports > that it cannot possibly complete the simulation to its end. You have despicably changed my words. It never has been any failure of HHH. It has always been that DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation thus specifying that it cannot possible reach its own final state and terminate normally. typedef void (*ptr)(); int HHH(ptr P); int DD() { int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); if (Halt_Status) HERE: goto HERE; return Halt_Status; } int main() { HHH(DD); } DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction and terminate normally because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation. If HHH can see the same pattern that every competent programmer sees then HHH does not need to emulate DD more than twice to know that HHH cannot possibly reach its own final state and terminate normally. Perhaps you are not a competent programmer. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer