Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 3/25/2025 3:06 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Translation: I don't know how to refute this and I'm afraid to admit I'm wrong.Op 25.mrt.2025 om 13:26 schreef olcott:I am just going to ignore you from now on.On 3/25/2025 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 3/24/25 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:>>>
I told you too damn many times that all this stuff
is in the same global memory space of the compiled
object file.
>
And thus either all the global memory space is what is defined to be the input, and thus every case you think of is a different input,
_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]
>
Correctly emulated is defined as emulated according to the
semantics of the x86 language.
>
The question does the machine code of DDD (the program under test)
reach is own "ret" instruction when correctly emulated by HHH?
>
is not effected by this.
>
It is not very interesting to know whether a simulator is able to report that it did not reach the end of the simulation of a program that halts in direct execution.
It is interesting to know:
'Is there an algorithm that can determine for all possible inputs whether the input specifies a program that (according to the semantics of the machine language) halts when directly executed?'
This question seems undecidable for Olcott.
>
>
>
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.