This repository has been archived on 2026-09-16. You can view files and clone it. You cannot open issues or pull requests or push a commit.
Files
Syplheed-Reborn/docs
Sylpheed RE agent 4f1f5ac0a2 re: the unreached code -- five mechanisms eliminated, nothing in the file names it
Inverting the question -- read what an unreached routine DOES, rather than testing
another candidate mechanism -- sharpened this a lot without solving it.

The metric was partly inflated.  Of 24901 unreached instructions in 564 runs, 458 runs
are length 1, and 111 of those are a lone `ret` stranded after an end_coroutine, with
the next routine being a properly seeded entry.  Stage 02's first two "unreached
routines" are exactly that.  But those are only 458 instructions: the real gap is
24443 in 106 runs, the largest 1526 (Stage 26), 1496 and 1481 (Stage 29), 1069, 904.

And it is live mission logic.  Stage 26's 1526-instruction run stages arguments and
calls builtin57(ADN110, 1) and set_group_speed(ADN110, 2, 0) -- named units, named
built-ins.

New this iteration: kill_coroutine (built-in 5) is confirmed as a code-offset carrier,
which is what the corpus said -- its local[0] resolves 150/150 onto the instruction
stream against a 34.0% control, values 13740..221048.  And, like the others, it points
at zero unreached run-starts.

That is now five mechanisms.  Across 2757 code references -- start_coroutine 1765, the
phase timeline 675, built-in 19's trigger handlers 79, kill_coroutine 150, and the
0x1883 records 88 -- not ONE lands on an unreached run-start.  A categorical absence,
not a near miss.

Not a tool artefact: 1765 of 1765 start_coroutine sites resolve with 0 missed, 0
entries land outside their phase region, and 0 are discarded by the on-stream filter.

Combined with the earlier result that an unreached routine's offset appears nowhere in
the file as a word in any encoding, these routines are referenced by nothing inside the
.ssb.  Either they are unused in this build, or they are entered from outside it.  A
1526-instruction routine driving a named squadron sits badly with "unused", but that
discomfort is not evidence and the two readings are recorded without choosing.

No static test I have devised can decide it; a runtime probe logging sub_822737C8's
third argument through a mission would.

All artefacts regenerate byte-identical; documentation only.
2026-08-27 07:46:56 +00:00
..