Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)

On 5/9/25 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/9/2025 8:32 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 10/05/2025 02:29, olcott wrote:

On 5/9/2025 8:15 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 10/05/2025 01:51, olcott wrote:

On 5/9/2025 7:29 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 10/05/2025 00:02, olcott wrote:

Correctly emulating one or more instructions <is>
the correct emulation of 1 or more instructions
of DD. This is a truism.

>
No, it's not. Correct emulation would entail accurately simulating the whole of DDD's behaviour.

>
It is stupidly wrong to require the complete
emulation of a non-terminating input.

>
It is touchingly naive to think you can persuade people to accept incomplete emulation as 'correct'.
>

>
If one instruction is emulated correctly
then is is dishonest to say that zero
instructions were emulated correctly.

>
Which instruction do you think is emulated correctly?
>

 _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]
 The entire sequence of the first four instructions
of DDD is emulated correctly. This sequence also
includes HHH emulating itself emulating DDD. This
results in a whole other sequence of first three
instructions of DDD being correctly emulated.
 

No it doesn't. The correct emulation of the call HHH instruction requires that the next instruction emualated (and that it will be emulated) is the first instruciton of HHH.
You just are showing your ignorance of the x86 language, or how ANY computer works.
Now, for HHH to emulate that first instuction of HHH, it needs to have been given it, which it hasn't, so HHH just can't do what it needs to.