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

On 2/28/25 8:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/28/2025 3:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 28.feb.2025 om 01:04 schreef 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.
>

_DD()
[00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
[00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
[0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
[00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
[00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
[0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
[0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
[00002154] 5d         pop ebp
[00002155] c3         ret Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]

>

Anyway: ignoring the call to HHH,

Is stupidly wrong.

It is not wrong, because HHH and its return value are not given in the instructions above.
But if we assume that it is Olcotts's HHH that returns 0, we can continue with 2141 and then continue up to 2155.

 I am no longer going reply to each individual.
I will reply to each point only once.
 A new post replies to everyone's reply
DD emulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally --- x86 code
 

Which is based on your false assumption that an aborted simulation is still the exact same thing as an unaborted correct simulation.
Sorry, you are just caught in your lies.