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

On 2/28/2025 2:46 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 27 Feb 2025 18:04:48 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/27/2025 3:00 PM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 27 Feb 2025 13:06:41 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/27/2025 3:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.feb.2025 om 05:40 schreef olcott:

On 2/26/2025 9:52 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:49:42 -0600 schrieb olcott:

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:

>

You already know that you are stupidly wrong about the emulation
being incorrect or you would have provided the correct emulation
sequence long ago.
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,

What are the correct first 15 lines of DD emulated by HHH.

There can be no correct continuation.

If I am wrong then a correct simulation must exist.

HHH1 did a correct simulation, so, there it is.

That dishonestly dodged the original question:
What are the first 15 *lines of DD* correctly emulated by HHH?

Look at what HHH1 does.

>

Anyway: ignoring the call to HHH,

Is stupidly wrong.

You only asked for the trace of DD.
>

 Within the context of the title of this thread knucklehead.

 

because it doesn't call DD in turn,
we continue with 2141 until the conditional jump, whereupon we either
enter an infinite loop (which is more than 15 instructions)
or proceed to return (which is 13 instructions), depending on the
return value of HHH.