Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal

On 7/26/2024 10:13 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 26 Jul 2024 08:54:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/26/2024 3:50 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 25 Jul 2024 23:25:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/25/2024 10:35 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 26/07/2024 01:53, olcott wrote:

On 7/25/2024 4:03 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 25/07/2024 14:56, olcott wrote:

On 7/24/2024 10:29 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 23/07/2024 14:31, olcott wrote:

On 7/23/2024 1:32 AM, 0 wrote:

On 2024-07-22 13:46:21 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/22/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-21 13:34:40 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/21/2024 4:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-20 13:11:03 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/20/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-19 14:08:24 +0000, olcott said:

 

In this case we have two x86utm machines that are identical
except that DDD calls HHH and DDD does not call HHH1.

I don't see how the outside use of a function can influence it.

 

Then we know that HHH can see the the first four instructions of DDD
have no conditional code that could prevent them from endlessly
repeating.

True, but HHH does have a conditional abort. It should be coded to
recognise that, because one knows that at compile time already.
 

The relative addressing is to be expected as a difference, and is
fine provided the actual target is the same. [Which it seems to
be...]
The whole thing with the slave instances might well be where the bug
lies!  That would be slightly funny, as I pointed out that problem on
some completely unrelated post, and this could be a follow-on issue
where it has caused observable misbehavior in the code.  (Needs a bit
more investigation...)

There never is any actual bug with the simulation.

I bet my nonexistent soul that there are bugs left in libx86. Apart
from that, your use of the library may be buggy.

That is irrelevant. We can see by the execution trace of DDD emulated by
HHH that this emulation does precisely match the semantics of the first
four x86 machine language instructions of DDD.

But not what comes afterwards, and HHH makes the incorrect assumption
that another instance of itself wouldn't abort.
 

That it is beyond your technical competence to understand that
unless the first HHH aborts then none of them do is less than
no rebuttal at all.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer