Re: Is everyone here faking that they know anything about the x86 language?

On 8/7/24 9:07 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/7/2024 1:48 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-05 15:16:27 +0000, olcott said:
>

I have been working in the x86 language back when my work
computer at the US Army corps of engineers was an IBM PC
with an 8088 processor, 512K of RAM and dual floppy drives.
>
I was creating dBASE III systems on this computer. This was
before the 8086 processor even existed thus the name x86
language did not yet exist.

>
Intel 8088 is a variant of 8086 for less expensive computers.
Intel 8086 already exsted when the first 8088 computers were
sold. Later Intel develped 80188, 80186, and other processors
that cold run programs that were written or compiled for 8086,
so someone coined the term x86 for the family.
>

 Can you write programs in this language?
I have written many interrupt intercept TSR
programs in the 8088 versions of the language.
I was doing my own time slicing back in 1987.
 

Then why do you think that the x86 emulation of a call instruction doesn't show the instructions that are called?
After all, wouldn't the trace of x86 level emulation of the program:
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
    printf("Hello World!");
    return 0;
}
be the tracing of the instructions of main puting the addres of the string on the stack, then calling printf, then printf copying the string byte by byte to the output as it checks for formatting characters, then returning to main that then returns.
instead of just
Hello World!
The later is NOT the trace of the emulation, but the results of the program, just like the emulation of the call HHH needs to show the instructions that HHH executes, and not just a summary of the output that HHH generates, especially since that fails to note that HHH has the option to stop its emulation, and thus break the supposed infinite recursion you claim.
Of course, that is EXACTLY the reason you don't show it, it would show that you are a liar.