Re: Can someone please verify the execution trace of this?

olcott writes:

On 5/21/2024 2:03 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 5/21/2024 6:37 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/21/2024 6:48 AM, Sam wrote:

olcott writes:
>

People on comp.theory have consistently lied about this
for at least the last two years:
>
typedef int (*ptr)();
int H(ptr P, ptr I);
>
int D(ptr x)
{
  int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
  if (Halt_Status)
    HERE: goto HERE;
  return Halt_Status;
}
>
int main()
{
  H(D,D);
  return 0;
}

>
Your C compiler also lied to you, if it ever claimed of succeeding in  compiling and producing an executable out of this masterpiece.
>

>
Keith Thompson has confirmed that my code both compiles
and conforms to the c17 standard.

>
Where did he say exactly that?
>
[...]
>

>
He only commented on the one-line-of code that does vary between
c17 and c23. The rest of the code has been standard for a long time.
I have been programming in C back when K & R was the standard.
>
On 5/20/2024 9:23 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
Message-ID: <87v837kinv.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
http://al.howardknight.net/? STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C87v837kinv.fsf%40nosuchdomain.example.com%3E

That link states that Keith Thompson plainly told you that the code will not  link. As such, it cannot be executed, since linking (in order to produce a  working executable) is a necessary prerequisite for that.
As such, all further claims about what the shown code does or does not do,  are immaterial, because the shown code will never work.
"Compiled", in common use, frequently encompasses both the compilation and  the linking stage, and is commonly used to refer to both processes, together.