Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 3/13/25 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:In other words you are stupidly tryingOn 3/13/2025 4:21 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:Not a program, and can not be correctly emulated beyond address 0000217A as it goes outside the input.On 13/03/2025 20:48, dbush wrote:>On 3/13/2025 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:>On 3/13/2025 4:27 AM, joes wrote:>Am Wed, 12 Mar 2025 21:41:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:>On 3/12/2025 7:56 PM, dbush wrote:>On 3/12/2025 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:>>>
NOT WHEN IT IS STIPULATED THAT THE BEHAVIOR BEING MEASURED IS
The direct execution of DDD
is proven to be different than the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH
according to the semantics of the x86 language.
Which is weird, considering that a simulator should produce the same
behaviour.
>
>DECIDERS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ON THE SEMANTIC OR SYNTACTIC PROPERTY OFAnd not if the input called a different simulator that didn't abort.
THEIR INPUT FINITE STRINGS.
>
Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly
reach its own final state no matter what HHH
does.
>
Replacing the code of HHH1 with an unconditional simulator and subsequently running HHH1(DD) does reach its
own final state.
>
If someone was not a liar they would say that
these are different computations.
>
Only because one changes the code that DD runs and one doesn't
It hardly matters. Either his emulation faithfully and correctly establishes and reports (for EVERY program anyone cares to feed it) the actual halting behaviour exhibited by the program it's emulating, or it doesn't.
>
_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]
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.