Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH

On 2/27/25 10:16 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/27/2025 1:32 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 23:00:58 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/26/2025 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/26/25 9:49 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/26/2025 3:48 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 26.feb.2025 om 05:50 schreef olcott:

On 2/25/2025 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>

What are the first 15 lines of DD correctly emulated by HHH?

The error in the simulation occurs already at the 5th instruction,
the 'call 000015c3'. Instead of simulating this instruction,

You dodged the actual question.
What are the correct first 15 lines of DD emulated by HHH.

And you are missing the point that HHH can not correctly emulate 15
line of this DD, as it is missing information and thus the task is
improperly defined.

If we assume that HHH emulates the above machine code then there is NO
MORE relevant information needed and we know that machine address
0000213c of DD is followed by machine address 00002133 of DD.

Wrong. A call to an address should transfer the instruction pointer
to that address.
>

 Yet when are asking for the execution trace of DD
and thus screening out the hundreds of pages of the
execution trace of HHH it is exactly how I said it.
 

In other words, you admit to needing to LIE to cover up your error.
Sorry, that is just the truth.
Your problem is "truth" is an undefined term in your logic system.