Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language

Am Mon, 01 Jul 2024 20:32:18 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 8:49 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/30/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM,
Richard Damon wrote:

And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it WILL
return to DDD and it will return also.
>

How can stopping the emulation the first four instructions of DDD
possibly do anything besides stop?
>

The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but not
the behavior of the input.

>
When DDD is no longer being emulated all of its behavior stops. DDD is
the input.
>

Nope, the emulation of DDD may stop, but the BEHAIVOR of THE INPUT,
which isn't dependent on the emulator looking at it,

 
That is a stupid lie. In input is a static string when not emulated and
only becomes a dynamic process when emulated.

Defined that way, there is no notion of the input halting or not AT ALL.
If you abort, you are not simulating the input, because it doesn’t contain
an abort.

--
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.