Re: How could HHH report on the behavior of its caller?

On 5/14/2025 10:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/14/25 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 9:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/14/25 9:30 PM, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
int main()
{
   DDD();
}
>
If HHH cannot report on the behavior of its caller
because this is a ridiculous requirement then how
can HHH report on the direct execution of DDD()
(AKA its caller).
>

>
Because it is given the code of DDD, and thus doesn't need to know about "It caller"
>

>
Unless it does know about its caller
The only directly executed DDD() that actually exists
no HHH can possibly know about any directly executed DDD().
>
>

 So, how does it know that?
 How does that knowledge affect the answer?
 

The HHH relative to any directly executed DDD is
only HHH called by this DDD. It has always been
stupid to require HHH to report on its caller.
The requirement for a halt decider to report on
the direct execution of its input is proven to
be stupidly wrong whenever this input calls
this decider because no C function can report
on its caller.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer