Sujet : Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 01. Jul 2024, 18:01:20
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v5ujsf$1na1q$4@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Mon, 01 Jul 2024 07:44:57 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/1/2024 1:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-06-30 17:18:09 +0000, olcott said:
>
Richard just said that he affirms that when DDD correctly simulated by
HHH calls HHH(DDD) that this call returns even though the semantics of
the x86 language disagrees.
The x86 semantics say that an aborted simulation returns.
It is your HHH so you should know whether it returns. Others may have
wrong impression about it if they have trusted your lies.
I have never lied about this.
You are inconsistent about whether HHH returns or not.
DDD is emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to
repeat the process until aborted. Once aborted the DDD emulated by HHH
immediately stops.
DDD running by itself does not stop. HHH stops simulating it.
At no point in this emulation does the call from DDD emulated
by HHH to HHH(DDD) ever return.
Where does the outer call to HHH get stuck after aborting?
-- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:Objectively I am a genius.
…