Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure

On 6/26/2024 7:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/26/24 8:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/26/2024 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
Mike understands how your use of static variables is cheating.
Others here will be baffled and confused.
>

 But the rules are the rules, and you can't create rules you didn't state.
 

If you really have such brain damage that you cannot remember
that we already discussed this and closed it I will start
praying for you.
YOU CAN'T FREAKING USE ANY STATIC LOCAL VARIABLES TO
CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR AND YOU KNOW WHY YOU CAN'T USE
THEM SO FREAKING QUIT IT !!!
_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
by x86 emulator H0 cannot possibly return.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer