"Fred L. Drake, Jr." <fdrake at acm.org>: > I don't see any reason to think them equivalent; we don't need to determine > that the code will execute to completion, only that the bytecodes can be > decoded without error. If arbitrary branching patterns are allowed, then in order to ensure absence of stack overflow/underflow, etc., it will be necessary to do things like proving that certain loops can't execute more than a certain number of times. This smells halting-problem-complete to me. It would be possible to prove that certain classes of bytecode sequence are valid, and reject all others. But I suspect that would reject a large number of valid-but-hard-to-prove sequences that bytecode hackers would find "interesting". Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a | Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. | greg at cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4