DSP LLE Recompiler: Fix LOOP and BLOOP when the counter is between 0x8001 and 0xFFFF #10723
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
I dunno what the hardware does but this looks right with regards to matching the recompiler to the interpreter. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The loop ends when the counter reaches 0, and the counter is unsigned; before, it was doing a signed 16-bit comparison if the value was less than or equal to 0 after subtracting 1 from the value.
This wasn't caught by #10716 because the saturation results in a value of 0x7fff or 0x8000, neither of which trigger the bug.
I ran into this when investigating the CARD uCode, as it ends up using BLOOP with a counter set to 0xFFFF if the input length is set to 0. (This isn't something that happens in practice (as far as I can tell the input length is always 8 normally), nor is it behavior that seems intended, but it confused me because the interpreter and recompiler were giving different results.)