Files
Sylpheed/docs/re
sylph-decoder 663587f9b5 re: the loop IS a runtime XMA field -- and reading it contradicts my audio measurement
No Canary patch was needed: UpdateLoopStatus already logs loop_start/loop_end,
they just need the Apu category (--log_mask=13 --log_level=3).

Decoded, from the menu, 8734 records all after BGM_103's contexts appear:
  ctx0 (wave 3876864)  loop_start 3605682  loop_end 25640423  loop_count 255
  ctx1 (wave 3930112)  loop_start 3539158  loop_end 26216351  loop_count 255
The movie's three ADV streams log NO loop records -- they do not loop.

Semantics visible in the trajectory: read_offset runs from 32 upward and 20 % of
samples sit below loop_start, so the stream plays from the beginning and
loop_start is where it returns AFTER loop_end. No wrap was observed -- the 45 s
hold ended with read_offset at 17 M against a loop_end of 25.6 M.

Two registered predictions REFUTED. loop_start is not ~0 but 11.6 % in. And a
linear bits-to-seconds conversion is invalid: it gives 62.34 s and 63.29 s for
two stems that must play sample-synchronously, which is impossible, so the data
refutes the assumption on its own.

That leaves a conflict I am not resolving: the field implies a cycle of roughly
[10 s, 72 s]; my audio tracking reported offsets 0.25..57.18 s. Recorded as
contested, with the likely weak link named as mine -- that locator's control used
slices cut from the wave itself, exact copies, which is an easier problem than
matching a real capture, and a control easier than the measurement does not bound
its error.

The port is told to change nothing: its trimmed 61.93 s loop is verified in its
own output, and the length survives better than the placement.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
2026-08-30 09:52:13 +00:00
..

Reverse-engineering knowledge base

This directory is the spec-side of the clean-room: it records what the original Project Sylpheed binary does (behaviour) and how its data is laid out, so that the Rust port can be implemented from these specs without re-deriving anything and without ever copying original code.

It exists to answer one question fast: "do we already know how X works, and how sure are we?"


The one rule that matters

Never document a claim more confidently than the evidence supports, and never paste original code here.

A wrong-but-confident note is worse than no note: someone builds on it and the bug hides for weeks. Every entry therefore carries an explicit confidence and its evidence. This mirrors the project method — measure the oracle, never infer; refute before believing.

Clean-room firewall

  • Allowed: behaviour descriptions, field offsets/types, formulas, state machines, observed input→output pairs, and references to the original by address (sub_821B68C0) or to xenia-rs/sylpheed.db.
  • Forbidden here and in crates/: pasted decompiled C/C++ or verbatim disassembled function bodies presented as the thing to reimplement. Cite the address; describe the behaviour in your own words. Disassembly is a tool for understanding, not a source to copy.

Confidence levels

Level Meaning Bar to reach it
CONFIRMED Behaviour verified against ground truth. ≥2 independent observations or one observation cross-checked against an oracle (canary framebuffer, a known-correct value, a second code path).
PROBABLE Strong single-source inference. One clean observation, or an unambiguous static read of the disassembly.
HYPOTHESIS Educated guess, not yet tested. Anything else. Must say what would confirm/refute it.

The status markers

The table above is the confidence scale. The markers that appear in BACKLOG.md and the structures/ pages are a separate, and until now undefined, vocabulary. They mean:

Marker Meaning
Confirmed — verified against ground truth.
🟡 Partial: true as far as it goes, or true under a stated assumption.
Open question. Nobody has answered it yet.
🔴 Refuted — shown false — or blocked by something the container cannot do.
A specific claim that was tried and failed. Prefer 🔴.
🚧 Work started and not finished.

🔴 never means "we have not run it yet." That is or 🚧. Reserve 🔴's "blocked" sense for a real limit of the box — no push credentials, no hardware Vulkan (lavapipe only), or a decision only the user can make. The box can run the emulator, script input, screenshot, read guest memory, and build and test Rust, so "needs a run" is never a blocker. This paragraph exists because the marker was undefined for 98 uses and three of them were mislabelled that way.

Promotion requires new evidence, not re-reading the old evidence. A HYPOTHESIS that "looks right again" is still a HYPOTHESIS. Only an independent check promotes it. If evidence later contradicts an entry, demote it and record the contradiction — do not silently edit the conclusion.


When to document

  • Right after a function/structure crosses from HYPOTHESIS to at least PROBABLE — before moving to the next code path, so the knowledge isn't lost or re-derived.
  • Whenever confidence changes (up or down) — append to the Evidence log, don't overwrite.
  • Not while it's still a pure guess with no evidence — a one-liner in the relevant backlog/plan is enough until there's something to stand on.

What to document

  • Functions/code pathsdocs/re/functions/<name>.md (one file per function or tight cluster).
  • Data structures / formatsdocs/re/structures/<name>.md.
  • Keep the index in INDEX.md (one line each: name · confidence · one-line summary).

Use the templates: _TEMPLATE.function.md, _TEMPLATE.structure.md.


How we find and confirm code paths (the toolchain)

Everything joins on the guest virtual address (PC) — code addresses are fixed by the XEX load, identical across our emulator and canary.

  • Static (cheap, try first): xenia-rs/sylpheed.db (DuckDB: 25 481 functions, xrefs, strings, vtables, imports). Query with xenia-rs/zq.pyzq.py grep <str>, zq.py xref <addr>, zq.py dis <lo> <hi>, zq.py fn <pc>. Entry points are usually a string (zq.py grep MSG_DEMO) or an import (movie/XMA API) xref'd back to the loader.
  • Dynamic (when static is ambiguous): run xenia-rs with its probe suite — --pc-probe / --audit-pc-probe-hex (fires at block entry), --mem-watch (mid-block reads/writes of a VA), --lr-trace (call/return chains), --trace-instructions, --dump-addr (read guest memory). These already exist; prefer them over hacking canary.
  • Oracle (correctness ground truth): canary — the Wine cross-build xenia-canary/build-cross/bin/Windows/Debug/xenia_canary.exe (the native Linux ELF crashes / does not run — do not use it). This is the only emulator that reaches the in-game menu; our xenia-rs never got past the intro video. Use canary to observe output (capture its framebuffer for texture colours), not usually to instrument code — though its build-cross toolchain does compile, so small C++ probes + rebuild are possible when needed. Run muted, one emulator process at a time, point it at the real ISO (not the symlink).

⚠️ VA-equality caveat: join code by PC (fixed), but never assume a data VA holds the same bytes across emulators — allocators differ. Compare data by content/layout.