Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:21:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:_DDD()On 7/3/2024 3:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Which semantics?Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:48 schreef olcott:On 7/2/2024 2:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Op 02.jul.2024 om 20:43 schreef olcott:On 7/2/2024 1:59 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-07-01 12:44:57 +0000, olcott said:On 7/1/2024 1:05 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-06-30 17:18:09 +0000, olcott said:>
Richard just said that he affirms that when DDD correctly
simulated by HHH calls HHH(DDD) that this call returns even
though the semantics of the x86 language disagrees.
If it returns, it doesn’t need to be aborted.It is your HHH so you should know whether it returns. Others may
have wrong impression about it if they have trusted your lies.
It is very easy to show.Please, point to the paragraph in the specification of the X86I am not going to show you the trace of the Peano axioms that prove
language that says that a two cycle recursion should be aborted after
one cycle.
>
the 2 + 3 = 5, if you disagree you are a liar or an ignoramus.
DDD correctly emulated by HHH calls an emulated HHH(DDD) that emulatesBut HHH aborts, so the cycle does end.
DDD that calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
in a cycle that cannot end unless aborted.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.