Re: Anyone that claims this is not telling the truth

On 8/17/24 10:58 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/17/24 8:29 AM, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
_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]
>
*It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
*the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
*running unless aborted* (out of memory error excluded)
>

>
No, anyone saying that the above is something that CAN be correctly emulated by the semantics of the x86 language is just a LIAR.
>

 You are inserting a word that I did not say.
 

To say that DDD is emulated by HHH means that it must be possible to validly do that act.
Since DDD is not a complete program, and refers to information not included, it can not be emulated.
Part of your problem is that the words you use in the technical sense have technical meanings that is seems you do not understand, because you chose not to learn the meanings.
It is not my fault that you don't understand what you are saying, but yours. I have shown you how to reword your statement to mean what it seems you mean, but you refuse to do that, as it will (apparently) break your next step, because you (apparently) plan on a trying to use a definition switch based on your sloppy wording.
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity, and that you are trying to be deceptive, but failing at it.