Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 3/29/2025 3:41 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:But HHH cannot report that, because it could not complete the simulation up to the end. An end that exists as proven when exactly the same finite string is used in direct execution or other world-class simulators.Op 28.mrt.2025 om 19:56 schreef olcott:_DDD()On 3/27/2025 5:01 PM, joes wrote:>Am Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:50:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:>On 3/27/2025 2:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:>Op 27.mrt.2025 om 04:09 schreef olcott:On 3/26/2025 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:That IS NOT what HHH is reporting.It is not very interesting to know whether a simulator reports that itNon-Halting is that the machine won't reach its final staste even ifDDD emulated by any HHH will never reach its final state in an
an unbounded number of steps are emulated. Since HHH doesn't do that,
it isn't showing non-halting.
unbounded number of steps.
DDD emulated by HHH1 reaches its final state in a finite number of
steps.
is unable to reach the end of the simulation of a program that halts in
direct execution.That is exactly what it does, and you have said so before(tm).>
>
You are saying that HHH is reporting that HHH is screwing
up THAT IS FALSE. HHH IS REPORTING THAT DDD IS SCREWING UP.
[00002163] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
[00002170] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d pop ebp
[00002174] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
Does not matter how you call it,It 100% totally does matter that DDD specifies non-halting
behavior when emulated by HHH according to the semantics of
the x86 language. That HHH DOES CORRECTLY DECIDE NON HALTING
MATTERS THE MOST.
but HHH (correctly) reports that it could not reach the end of the simulation. Exactly the same finite string does not give problems for direct execution or world-class simulators to reach this end.
>
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.