Try and prove that DDD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its final halt state

On 5/9/2025 8:31 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 10/05/2025 02:26, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
_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]
>
Try to show how DDD emulated by HHH according to the
rules of the x86 language reaches its own "ret"
instruction final halt state.

 First, try to find a way to prove that DDD is correctly emulated by HHH. Proof by assertion will not do.
 

*The burden of proof is on you*
You claim  that I made a mistake yet have no actual
evidence of any actual mistake.
That you think that emulating one instruction correctly
is emulating zero instructions correctly seems dishonest.
That you cannot show one mistake proves that you know
of no mistake.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer