Re: Can someone please verify the execution trace of this?

On 5/21/2024 2:03 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 5/21/2024 6:37 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/21/2024 6:48 AM, Sam wrote:

olcott writes:
>

People on comp.theory have consistently lied about this
for at least the last two years:
>
typedef int (*ptr)();
int H(ptr P, ptr I);
>
int D(ptr x)
{
  int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
  if (Halt_Status)
    HERE: goto HERE;
  return Halt_Status;
}
>
int main()
{
  H(D,D);
  return 0;
}

>
Your C compiler also lied to you, if it ever claimed of succeeding in compiling and producing an executable out of this masterpiece.
>

>
Keith Thompson has confirmed that my code both compiles
and conforms to the c17 standard.

 Where did he say exactly that?
 [...]
 

He only commented on the one-line-of code that does vary between
c17 and c23. The rest of the code has been standard for a long time.
I have been programming in C back when K & R was the standard.
On 5/20/2024 9:23 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
Message-ID: <87v837kinv.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C87v837kinv.fsf%40nosuchdomain.example.com%3E H completely ignores that I have stated that this is a function template
specifying an infinite set of H/D pairs such that (pure function) H is
only required to simulate N steps of D with an x86 emulator.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer