0x82448AA0 and 0x82448C50 are not strcmp. Both pass the name to 0x82447DF0 and
use the result as a key: the first binary-searches a table of 16-byte records
(x16 for the end, /16 for the count, >>1 for the midpoint), the second packs the
hash into a three-word key and calls 0x8244E338.
Decoded 0x82447DF0 from the disassembly as ((sum of extsb bytes) & 0xFF) << 24 |
(rolling mod 0x00FFFFDF) -- i.e. tag_hash. tools/re-capture/unitgroup.py::tag_hash
already documents itself as "a transcription of sub_82447DF0", so this was in the
corpus; the useful part is that it identifies which hash the ARCHIVE uses.
That exposed a defect in my previous sweep: it probed name_hash (0x00FFF9D7,
lowercased) only, while the archive keys by tag_hash (0x00FFFFDF, case-sensitive).
Re-ran with BOTH: 1380 names -> 2148 distinct hashes, 41 paks, 26443 records.
STILL ZERO. The pak-record hypothesis is now refuted with the right hash rather
than merely unsupported.
Left open: the XEX's compressed/encrypted region (default.xex never decrypted
here), plus two untried static threads -- the second pair of SCRIPTS/GP_SCRIPT
references at 0x82262374 / 0x822622bc, in a different function, and tracing
[r31+80] back to whoever opened the archive being name-tested.
b3d146b758