Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/7/2024 2:57 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

[ .... ]

If people are going to be dishonest about simple things such as the
actual behavior of actual x86 code where they consistently deny
verified facts ....

You should stop swearing.  "Verified facts" has a meaning,

Everyone knows that the following is a verified fact and
they dishonestly deflect.

That is untrue.  There is at least one person who doesn't know "it's a
verified fact" (me).

What's more it is a lie.  You know full well that "the following" has NOT
been verified by anybody.  If I am wrong, point out who has done this
verifying, when, how, and what their conclusions were.

Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.

_DD()
[00001e12] 55         push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51         push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH

A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
by HH and simulated in the correct order.

Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
of the above definition of correct simulation.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).