Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language

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.
You seem to be confused by the fact that the outer HHH stopped looking at the behavior of its input when it aborted its simulation.
HHH aborting its emulation DOES NOT STOP THE BEHAVIOR OF THE MACHINE IT WAS EMULATING.
Also, "DDD" isn't just the bytes you list above, or your problem isn't properly defined, as then HHH can not correct emulate its input past the call instructions, which is a ERROR you keep on repeating.
THe input to HHH must include ALL of the code of DDD and everything it calls, or it isn't a proper input, and you are just shown to have been lying for years about that.