XPost: comp.theory   
   From: NoOne@nospicedham.NoWhere.com   
      
   On 12/19/2020 6:22 AM, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:   
   > On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 11:57:28 GMT, James Harris   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 17/12/2020 06:41, Frank Kotler wrote:   
   >>   
   >> ...   
   >>   
   >>> Hi Pete,   
   >>>   
   >>> As moderator of this newsgroup, I am very reluctant to reject your   
   >>> messages just because I'm not interested (but I'm not). Woifgang's   
   >>> message makes me think I'm not the only one...   
   >>>   
   >>> Could I ask you to not post on this topic here?   
   >>>   
   >>> Could I ask Wolfgang (and others) to simply ignore messages you don't   
   >>> like? It only takes you a second to click "next".   
   >>>   
   > Sounds a sensible approach.   
   >   
   >>> There's an "issue" here. If clax86 is on the lost of newsgroups, it   
   >>> comes to my attention. If I reject it - NONE of the messages get   
   >>> posted! If it were up to me, it wouldn't work this way, but it isn't.   
   >>   
   >> Thanks for what you are doing, Frank. IIRC you are the only one who   
   >> took up the challenge of moderating this group and what you do for us   
   >> is appreciated.   
   >>   
   >> At the risk of continuing a thread that is already off the topic of   
   >> x86 asm I wonder if there's not some way the rest of us could make the   
   >> job of the moderator easier. Maybe that's something we should discuss.   
   >>   
   > Is there any need for moderating? Just ignore any religious posts.   
   >   
      
   My post was not totally off-topic because the most important part of   
   this post is examining the semantic meaning of the execution trace of   
   this sequence of x86 instructions:   
      
   ---[000005e6](01)  55                  push ebp   
   ---[000005e7](02)  8bec                mov ebp,esp   
   ---[000005e9](01)  51                  push ecx   
   ---[000005ea](03)  8b4508              mov eax,[ebp+08]   
   ---[000005ed](01)  50                  push eax   
   ---[000005ee](03)  8b4d08              mov ecx,[ebp+08]   
   ---[000005f1](01)  51                  push ecx   
   ---[000005f2](05)  e8effdffff          call 000003e6   	--CALL [000003e6]   
   ---[000005e6](01)  55                  push ebp   
   ---[000005e7](02)  8bec                mov ebp,esp   
   ---[000005e9](01)  51                  push ecx   
   ---[000005ea](03)  8b4508              mov eax,[ebp+08]   
   ---[000005ed](01)  50                  push eax   
   ---[000005ee](03)  8b4d08              mov ecx,[ebp+08]   
   ---[000005f1](01)  51                  push ecx   
   ---[000005f2](05)  e8effdffff          call 000003e6   	--CALL [000003e6]   
   Input Aborted because of INFINITE RECURSION from [000005f2] to [000003e6]   
      
   Every time that the same function is called from the same machine   
   address a second time without any control flow instructions in-between   
   (within an execution trace) is a case of infinite recursion. This is   
   shown at execution trace lines 1-16 above.   
      
   People on other groups do not know the x86 language well enough to   
   understand that this execution trace does specify infinite recursion.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott   
      
   "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre   
   minds." Einstein   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)