On 09/11/2025 02:08, olcott wrote:
On 11/8/2025 6:30 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 08/11/2025 20:54, olcott wrote:
I see you've not changed your behaviour regarding insulting posters by
name in the titles of your posts.ÿ Several people have informed you that that is considered bad etiquette for usenet posts.
Just for the lols, I've changed the title to insult you! Ho ho ho, what
a laugh.
Regarding your intensions to continue with your C interpretter
devolopment:ÿ that's great, really. Your time is your own, even if
others question whether you might be wasting it.
I suppose time will tell whether it fails to achieve what you expect it
to achieve, as I warned. [..but it seems from your reply (snipped) time
will only tell us and not you; that's ok too..]
Mike.
On 11/8/2025 10:44 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 09/11/2025 02:08, olcott wrote:
On 11/8/2025 6:30 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 08/11/2025 20:54, olcott wrote:
I see you've not changed your behaviour regarding insulting posters by
name in the titles of your posts.ÿ Several people have informed you
that that is considered bad etiquette for usenet posts.
Just for the lols, I've changed the title to insult you! Ho ho ho,
what a laugh.
Regarding your intensions to continue with your C interpretter
devolopment:ÿ that's great, really. Your time is your own, even if
others question whether you might be wasting it.
I suppose time will tell whether it fails to achieve what you expect
it to achieve, as I warned. [..but it seems from your reply (snipped)
time will only tell us and not you; that's ok too..]
Mike.
*Updated words*
ÿ Simulating termination analyzer H simulates
ÿ N statements of D according to the semantics of
ÿ the C programming language. H does this until it
ÿ matches a correct non-halting behavior pattern.
ÿ This pattern conclusively proves that the simulated
ÿ D cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return"
ÿ statement final halt state for any value of N.
ÿ Then H aborts its simulation and returns 0 on the
ÿ basis that that its input D specifies a non-halting
ÿ sequence of instructions.
This is empirically proven by a C interpreter.
(Detailed design provided below)
int H(char* P);
int D()
{
ÿ int Halt_Status = H(D);
ÿ if (Halt_Status)
ÿÿÿ HERE: goto HERE;
ÿ return Halt_Status;
}
The above is assumed in in test.c
simulate.exe implements a C interpreter.
Command line invocation: simulate test.c
When this interpreter sees the call to H(D) it
calls itself with the text body of D. I intend
to make this generic for any named function.
The above proves that N instructions of D simulated
by H according to the semantics of the C programming
language cannot possibly reach its own "return"
statement final halt state.
It is estimated that the adaptation of an existing
C interpreter should take about one full time week.
I already found one that can call itself recursively.
The tricky part that might require YACC and LEX is
parsing the input file to recognize instances of H
that must be called with text strings of function bodies.
On 11/9/2025 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/8/2025 10:44 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 09/11/2025 02:08, olcott wrote:
On 11/8/2025 6:30 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 08/11/2025 20:54, olcott wrote:
I see you've not changed your behaviour regarding insulting posters
by name in the titles of your posts.ÿ Several people have informed
you that that is considered bad etiquette for usenet posts.
Just for the lols, I've changed the title to insult you! Ho ho ho,
what a laugh.
Regarding your intensions to continue with your C interpretter
devolopment:ÿ that's great, really. Your time is your own, even if
others question whether you might be wasting it.
I suppose time will tell whether it fails to achieve what you expect
it to achieve, as I warned. [..but it seems from your reply (snipped)
time will only tell us and not you; that's ok too..]
Mike.
*Updated words*
ÿÿ Simulating termination analyzer H simulates
ÿÿ N statements of D according to the semantics of
ÿÿ the C programming language. H does this until it
ÿÿ matches a correct non-halting behavior pattern.
ÿÿ This pattern conclusively proves that the simulated
ÿÿ D cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return"
ÿÿ statement final halt state for any value of N.
ÿÿ Then H aborts its simulation and returns 0 on the
ÿÿ basis that that its input D specifies a non-halting
ÿÿ sequence of instructions.
This is empirically proven by a C interpreter.
(Detailed design provided below)
int H(char* P);
int D()
{
ÿÿ int Halt_Status = H(D);
ÿÿ if (Halt_Status)
ÿÿÿÿ HERE: goto HERE;
ÿÿ return Halt_Status;
}
The above is assumed in in test.c
simulate.exe implements a C interpreter.
Command line invocation: simulate test.c
When this interpreter sees the call to H(D) it
calls itself with the text body of D. I intend
to make this generic for any named function.
The above proves that N instructions of D simulated
by H according to the semantics of the C programming
language cannot possibly reach its own "return"
statement final halt state.
It is estimated that the adaptation of an existing
C interpreter should take about one full time week.
I already found one that can call itself recursively.
The tricky part that might require YACC and LEX is
parsing the input file to recognize instances of H
that must be called with text strings of function bodies.
Why even have H at all? Look at the source code itself, do some static analysis on it. H is pointless here? D can be:
______________________
int D(int status)
{
if (status)
{
for (;;)
{
// lol...
}
}
return status;
}
______________________
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 14 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 237:52:52 |
| Calls: | 184 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 82,415 |