bump ifStatus_802F4EDC to ~ 70% match

[malvarezcastillo]

Had claude work on the largest portion of unmatched code to see how it'd do. Here's the result. Did it do an acceptable job? It couldn't push it over 71% without doing fake black magic code patterns, this is the best "honest" attempt.

Claude:

Assessment of function "realness" at 70.17%:

Fakey pattern found:

• Lines 346-348: Using digit_jobj->u.dobj->mobj->tobj instead of the just-assigned tobj variable. Removing it drops to 69%. This is a register allocation workaround.

Legitimate patterns:

• PAD_STACK(96) - standard technique for stack alignment
• HudIndex* hud and anim_base caching - proper variable patterns
• (void) 0 after label - required C syntax
• The mat_anim ->child->next->next chains - actual data structure traversal

Verdict: The function is "real enough" - the logic, structs, and data flow are correctly decompiled. The only questionable thing is that one tobj workaround (~1% impact). Everything else reflects what the code actually
does. Whether to keep that workaround is a style/philosophy question for the project maintainers.

[encounter]

Report for GALE01 (4781872 - 76284cd)

📈 2 improvements in unmatched functions

Unit	Item	Bytes	Before	After
main/melee/if/ifstatus	ifStatus_802F4EDC	+2281	0.18%	71.92%
main/melee/if/ifstatus	.sdata2	+7	52.78%	59.57%

[ribbanya]

Seems quite acceptable as a first pass. Function needs to be broken up into inline calls, like the found_player control flow. There's probably a missing struct on the stack that's causing the insane padding value. jobj.h asserts are inlines which can easily be found by line number in jobj.h.

[malvarezcastillo]

Let me have a go at that, one sec.

[malvarezcastillo]

Seems quite acceptable as a first pass. Function needs to be broken up into inline calls, like the found_player control flow. There's probably a missing struct on the stack that's causing the insane padding value. jobj.h asserts are inlines which can easily be found by line number in jobj.h.

Nevermind:

I've been working extensively on this function. Here's the current status:

Current match: 71.92% (improved from initial 71.52%)

Successful improvements committed:

1. Used function-level i for player-finding loop index
2. Reordered variable declarations for better register allocation

Key blockers to reaching 90%:

1. bdnz loop pattern not generating: Target uses mtctr + bdnz (CTR-based loop), but mwcc generates addic. + bne regardless of the C loop structure. This is a fundamental codegen difference.
2. Register allocation: Target saves r23-r31, generated saves r22-r31 (one extra register being used).
3. Inline expansion differences: Target has ~49 function calls, generated has ~100 - suggesting different inline behavior.

I've tried many approaches including different loop structures, inline functions, variable declaration orders, and pragma settings, but haven't been able to break past ~72%.

The reviewer's suggestions (bdnz loop, missing struct on stack, jobj.h inlines) are accurate but the specific code patterns to trigger them are proving difficult to find. This function may need consultation with other
decompilers who have experience with this specific pattern, or acceptance of the current ~72% match as a first pass.

Shall I continue experimenting, or would you like me to document the current state and move on?