Re: DD emulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally --- x86 code

Op 02.mrt.2025 om 00:58 schreef olcott:

On 3/1/2025 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/1/25 2:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/1/2025 10:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/1/25 9:41 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/1/2025 6:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/28/25 7:47 PM, olcott wrote:

_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]
>
When we hypothesize that the code at machine address
0000213c is an x86 emulator then we know that DD
remains stuck in recursive emulation and cannot possibly
reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
>
When we add the additional complexity that HHH also
aborts this sequence at some point then every level
of recursive emulation immediately stops. This does
not enable any DD to ever reach its "ret" instruction.
>

>
But then you just negated your first assumption, as a partial emulator that aborts its emulation, then DD no longer gets stuck.
>

>
Cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
proves non-termination whether aborted or not.
>
Cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
proves non-termination whether aborted or not.
>
Cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
proves non-termination whether aborted or not.
>
>

>
But it DOES terminate

>
DD emulated by HHH never terminates no matter how many
times you try to get away with the straw-man deception
of referring to anything at all besides
>
DD EMULATED BY HHH
DD EMULATED BY HHH
DD EMULATED BY HHH
DD EMULATED BY HHH
DD EMULATED BY HHH
DD EMULATED BY HHH
>
>

>
Which since HHH doesn't correctly emulate DD is just a fantasy.
>

 If it was actually incorrect then someone could show
how the above code is correctly emulated by HHH.

Invalid logic. If there a correct way does not exist, Oloctt is incorrect and nobody else can show a correct way.