Re: DDD emulated by HHH --- (does not refer to prior posts)

On 2024-09-07 13:51:47 +0000, olcott said:

On 9/7/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-06 11:20:52 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 9/6/2024 5:22 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-03 13:58:27 +0000, olcott said:

 _DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
 Anyone that is not dumber than a box of rocks can tell
that machine address 0000217f is unreachable for every
DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the
x86 language where HHH emulates itself emulating DDD.

 Anyone who really knows either x86 assembly or machine langage or
C can see that the machine address 217f is unreachachable only if
the program at 000015d2, named HHH, does not return.
 

 That is not exactly true. There is a directly executed HHH
that always returns and a DDD emulated by HHH that calls
an emulated HHH that never returns.

 There is only one DDD. The emulated DDD is the same as the directly
executed DDD. If HHH emulates someting else then that is not DDD.

 I have conclusively proven that DDD, DD, D, PP and P
do have different behavior within pathological relationships
than outside of pathological relationships at least 1000
times in the last three years.

Saying "I have conclusively proven" wihtout actually proving anything
is not convincing.
--
Mikko