Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?

On 7/1/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
int main()
{
   HHH(Infinite_Loop);
   HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
that when HHH emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
so that itself can terminate normally.

>
Right.
>

>
Then why do you contradict yourself below? Did you forget to lie?

>
Because I didn't contradict my self or lie, as the programs are different.
>

 See what you agreed to by re-reading the words that
you agreed to and you will see that you forgot to lie
this time.
 

Your streaching. You know what I mean, and if you want to get finicky, I will pull out the doxens of LIES that you have implicitly admitted to by not providing the references you claimed to have.
Yes, HHH must abort its emulation to return, but that doesn't mean that THIS input in non-halting.
I could point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for you HHH to actually correctly do the emulation you claim on the input provided (since there is no code provded to emulate the call HHH) so your question is just invalid.