XPost: comp.lang.c

On 21/06/2024 22:41, olcott wrote:

On 6/17/2024 9:11 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 17.06.2024 um 05:47 schrieb olcott:

To understand this analysis requires a sufficient knowledge of
the C programming language and what an x86 emulator does.

typedef void (*ptr)();
int H0(ptr P);

void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}

void DDD()
{
   H0(DDD);
   return;
}

int main()
{
   H0(Infinite_Loop);
   H0(Infinite_Recursion);
   H0(DDD);
}

Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows that when H0 >>> emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop, Infinite_Recursion, and
DDD that it must abort these emulations so that itself can terminate
normally.

When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as non-
halting.

*My POD24 diagnosis is reducing the time I have left to work on this*
Validation of POD24 as a robust early clinical end point of poor
survival in FL from 5225 patients on 13 clinical trials
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614146/

Everything correct, no further questions allowed.

Thanks for your help on this. The Liars on comp.theory are
even lying about what you actually said.

Pretty sure that Bonita was taking the piss.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.lang.c

On 6/22/24 2:00 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 22.06.2024 um 19:20 schrieb Richard Damon:

C++ made a special rule for the << operator because the gain for its
use as an output was high enough, and the cost as a normal shift
operator was rarely high (and normally hidden by the "as if" rule) so
it was done there.

I guess C++ doesn't make a statement on that and the ordered behaviour
depens in the cascaded return of the stream-object.

My understanding is that the Standard made that a requirement so the
cascaded operands would be computed in the right order.

Prior to that, it was allowed to compute the order of the terms being
output in any order, as the call to operator <<(ostream& strm, T& value)
was allowd to compute value before resolving stream (as the value from
the previous operator <<, which caught enough people off guard.

That was considered useful enough, and where << is used as the shift
operator, the restriction is unlikely to cause a large impact, so they
did it for that special case.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/26/2024 12:32 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 21.06.2024 um 23:41 schrieb olcott:

On 6/17/2024 9:11 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 17.06.2024 um 05:47 schrieb olcott:

To understand this analysis requires a sufficient knowledge of
the C programming language and what an x86 emulator does.

typedef void (*ptr)();
int H0(ptr P);

void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}

void DDD()
{
   H0(DDD);
   return;
}

int main()
{
   H0(Infinite_Loop);
   H0(Infinite_Recursion);
   H0(DDD);
}

Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows that
when H0
emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop, Infinite_Recursion, and >>>> DDD that it must abort these emulations so that itself can terminate
normally.

When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as non-
halting.

*My POD24 diagnosis is reducing the time I have left to work on this*
Validation of POD24 as a robust early clinical end point of poor
survival in FL from 5225 patients on 13 clinical trials
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614146/

Everything correct, no further questions allowed.

Thanks for your help on this. The Liars on comp.theory are
even lying about what you actually said.

Come up with some _practical_ issues which are related to C or C++.
You're asking things which are generic to a lot of languages.

Why are you corresponding with this pedophile olcott?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/26/2024 1:42 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 26.06.2024 um 19:09 schrieb DFS:

On 6/26/2024 12:32 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 21.06.2024 um 23:41 schrieb olcott:

On 6/17/2024 9:11 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 17.06.2024 um 05:47 schrieb olcott:

To understand this analysis requires a sufficient knowledge of
the C programming language and what an x86 emulator does.

typedef void (*ptr)();
int H0(ptr P);

void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}

void DDD()
{
   H0(DDD);
   return;
}

int main()
{
   H0(Infinite_Loop);
   H0(Infinite_Recursion);
   H0(DDD);
}

Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows that
when H0
emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
Infinite_Recursion, and
DDD that it must abort these emulations so that itself can terminate >>>>>> normally.

When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as non-
halting.

*My POD24 diagnosis is reducing the time I have left to work on this* >>>>>> Validation of POD24 as a robust early clinical end point of poor
survival in FL from 5225 patients on 13 clinical trials
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614146/

Everything correct, no further questions allowed.

Thanks for your help on this. The Liars on comp.theory are
even lying about what you actually said.

Come up with some _practical_ issues which are related to C or C++.
You're asking things which are generic to a lot of languages.

Why are you corresponding with this pedophile olcott?

I know that an affinity to computer sciences is correlated to pedophilia
bi 97,2%.

It's no joke. He was arrested for possession of significant amounts of
child porn.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)