reimplement: SHC_3BB0A8C1_0x00479C80 optimization issues#76
Draft
TheRedDaemon wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
reimplement: SHC_3BB0A8C1_0x00479C80 optimization issues#76TheRedDaemon wants to merge 1 commit into
TheRedDaemon wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This one might need AI work. I was unable to produce the 100% match due to the way the second loop variable is computed:
Common sense tells me both loops need to be forward. Apparently, the original did not allow the compiler to "know" the start value of the second loop and made it dependend on the internal run value of the first, or the compiler decided here to use
leainstead ofmov, while having to pad with anopthen.The rest seems to fit. I created a temporary global in the cpp file to simulate the struct variable access. It uses one of these direct "add" that do not work for the resolver.
So, current state:
Would be cool if you could try this one also with the AI method, under the assumption it is not too confused by the resolver issue.