Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 2024-08-07 13:43:09 +0000, olcott said:x86 machine code is a 100% exact and concrete specification.
On 8/7/2024 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:No, that requires knowing what does or at least whther itOn 2024-08-05 15:01:36 +0000, olcott said:>
>On 8/5/2024 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2024-08-04 12:37:49 +0000, olcott said:>
>On 8/4/2024 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2024-08-03 13:58:07 +0000, olcott said:>
>On 8/3/2024 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2024-08-02 20:57:26 +0000, olcott said:>
>Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated>
by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
>
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
Everyone here understands that that depends on whther HHH returns.
Fred's understanding is worse than that.
You don't know whether that is true.
>Some have deeper understanding than that.>
>
*Ben has the best understanding of all*
In particular better than you.
>
*Ben has a deeper agreement with me than anyone else*
Doesn't matter. Points of disagreement, both deep and shallow, are
more important than points of agreement.
Not at all.
Most of the reviewers simply don't have a clue that they
don't have a clue. The error is entirely on their side.
Your reviewers don't need a clue. You need. But you don't have.
And you don't know you don't have so you don't seek. As you
don't seek you will never get.
>
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
>
Any expert in the C language that knows what x86 emulators
are knows that DDD correctly emulated by HHH specifies what
is essentially equivalent to infinite recursion.
ever returns. Knowledge of what x86 emulators are does not
help.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.