Sujet : Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.com (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 24. Jun 2024, 20:36:31
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v5chru$10816$1@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:48:19 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 6/24/2024 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-06-23 13:17:27 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/23/2024 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
That code is not from the mentined trace file. In that file _DDD()
is at the addresses 2093..20a4. According to the trace no instruction
at the address is executed (because that address points to the last
byte of a three byte instruction.
>
In order to make my examples I must edit the code and this changes the
addresses of some functions.
Why do you need to make an example when you already have one in the
file mentioned in the subject line?
I had to make a few more examples such as HH1(DD,DD)
AFACT HH1 is the same as HH0, right? What happens when HH1 tries to
simulate a function DD1 that only calls HH1?
-- Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim
…