Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:I am not going to be a nice person to those thatOn 5/25/2025 11:59 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:On 5/25/2025 10:49 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Op 25.mei.2025 om 16:36 schreef olcott:On 5/25/2025 1:21 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2025-05-24 01:20:18 +0000, Mr Flibble said:So much bad faith and dishonesty shown in this forum that myself and
Peter
Olcott have to fight against.Everything here seems to be dishonesty and protests against dishonesty.
If you could remove all dishonesty the protests woud stop, too, and
nothing would be left._DDD()
[00002192] 55 push ebp
[00002193] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d pop ebp
[000021a3] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]Then acknowledge that DDD simulated by HHH accordingWhy repeating this bug in HHH?
to the rules of the x86 language cannot possibly reach
its own "ret" instruction final halt state.That everyone that understands these things
sees that there is no bug ....That is untrue. The bug is clear to anybody who understands C code.OK then to prove that you are not a damned liarYou've got a wierd notion of what it means to be a liar.
(you won't do this because you know that you are a liar)
show how DDD simulated by HHH according to the rules
of the x86 language reaches its own "ret" instruction
final halt state.
FIND THE BUG ASSHOLE !!!You're not a nice person. The bug in question has been pointed out many
times, in particular by Fred.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.