Blog

Showing all posts tagged
and

🔼
🔽
📝 Posted:
🚚 Summary of:
P0227 TH05 decompilation (Sara) / Research (Relativity of near references)
P0228 TH05 finalization (Lasers)
💰 Funded by:
nrook, [Anonymous]
🏷️ Tags:

Starting the year with a delivery that wasn't delayed until the last day of the month for once, nice! Still, very soon and high-maintenance did not go well together…

It definitely wasn't Sara's fault though. As you would expect from a Stage 1 Boss, her code was no challenge at all. Most of the TH02, TH04, and TH05 bosses follow the same overall structure, so let's introduce a new table to replace most of the boilerplate overview text:

Phase # Patterns HP boundary Timeout condition
Sprite of Sara in TH05 (Entrance) 4,650 288 frames
2 4 2,550 2,568 frames (= 32 patterns)
3 4 450 5,296 frames (= 24 patterns)
4 1 0 1,300 frames
Total 9 9,452 frames

And that's all the gameplay-relevant detail that ZUN put into Sara's code. It doesn't even make sense to describe the remaining patterns in depth, as their groups can significantly change between difficulties and rank values. The 📝 general code structure of TH05 bosses won't ever make for good-code, but Sara's code is just a lesser example of what I already documented for Shinki.
So, no bugs, no unused content, only inconsequential bloat to be found here, and less than 1 push to get it done… That makes 9 PC-98 Touhou bosses decompiled, with 22 to go, and gets us over the sweet 50% overall finalization mark! 🎉 And sure, it might be possible to pass through the lasers in Sara's final pattern, but the boss script just controls the origin, angle, and activity of lasers, so any quirk there would be part of the laser code… wait, you can do what?!?

TH05 expands TH04's one-off code for Yuuka's Master and Double Sparks into a more featureful laser system, and Sara is the first boss to show it off. Thus, it made sense to look at it again in more detail and finalize the code I had purportedly 📝 reverse-engineered over 4 years ago. That very short delivery notice already hinted at a very time-consuming future finalization of this code, and that prediction certainly came true. On the surface, all of the low-level laser ray rendering and collision detection code is undecompilable: It uses the SI and DI registers without Turbo C++'s safety backups on the stack, and its helper functions take their input and output parameters from convenient registers, completely ignoring common calling conventions. And just to raise the confusion even further, the code doesn't just set these registers for the helper function calls and then restores their original values, but permanently shifts them via additions and subtractions. Unfortunately, these convenient registers also include the BP base pointer to the stack frame of a function… and shifting that register throws any intuition behind accessed local variables right out of the window for a good part of the function, requiring a correctly shifted view of the stack frame just to make sense of it again. :godzun: How could such code even have been written?! This goes well beyond the already wrong assumption that using more stack space is somehow bad, and straight into the territory of self-inflicted pain.

So while it's not a lot of instructions, it's quite dense and really hard to follow. This code would really benefit from a decompilation that anchors all this madness as much as possible in existing C++ structures… so let's decompile it anyway? :tannedcirno:
Doing so would involve emitting lots of raw machine code bytes to hide the SI and DI registers from the compiler, but I already had a certain 📝 batshit insane compiler bug workaround abstraction lying around that could make such code more readable. Hilariously, it only took this one additional use case for that abstraction to reveal itself as premature and way too complicated. :onricdennat: Expanding the core idea into a full-on x86 instruction generator ended up simplifying the code structure a lot. All we really want there is a way to set all potential parameters to e.g. a specific form of the MOV instruction, which can all be expressed as the parameters to a force-inlined __emit__() function. Type safety can help by providing overloads for different operand widths here, but there really is no need for classes, templates, or explicit specialization of templates based on classes. We only need a couple of enums with opcode, register, and prefix constants from the x86 reference documentation, and a set of associated macros that token-paste pseudoregisters onto the prefixes of these enum constants.
And that's how you get a custom compile-time assembler in a 1994 C++ compiler and expand the limits of decompilability even further. What's even truly left now? Self-modifying code, layout tricks that can't be replicated with regularly structured control flow… and that's it. That leaves quite a few functions I previously considered undecompilable to be revisited once I get to work on making this game more portable.

With that, we've turned the low-level laser code into the expected horrible monstrosity that exposes all the hidden complexity in those few ASM instructions. The high-level part should be no big deal now… except that we're immediately bombarded with Fixup overflow errors at link time? Oh well, time to finally learn the true way of fixing this highly annoying issue in a second new piece of decompilation tech – and one that might actually be useful for other x86 Real Mode retro developers at that.
Earlier in the RE history of TH04 and TH05, I often wrote about the need to split the two original code segments into multiple segments within two groups, which makes it possible to slot in code from different translation units at arbitrary places within the original segment. If we don't want to define a unique segment name for each of these slotted-in translation units, we need a way to set custom segment and group names in C land. Turbo C++ offers two #pragmas for that:

For the most part, these #pragmas work well, but they seemed to not help much when it came to calling near functions declared in different segments within the same group. It took a bit of trial and error to figure out what was actually going on in that case, but there is a clear logic to it:

Summarized in code: 

#pragma option -zCfoo_TEXT -zPfoo

void bar(void);
void near qux(void); // defined somewhere else, maybe in a different segment

#pragma codeseg baz_TEXT baz

// Despite the segment change in the line above, this function will still be
// put into `foo_TEXT`, the active segment during the first appearance of the
// function name.
void bar(void) {
}

// This function hasn't been declared yet, so it will go into `baz_TEXT` as
// expected.
void baz(void) {
	// This `near` function pointer will be calculated by subtracting the
	// flat/linear address of qux() inside the binary from the base address
	// of qux()'s declared segment, i.e., `foo_TEXT`.
	void (near *ptr_to_qux)(void) = qux;
}

So yeah, you might have to put #pragma codeseg into your headers to tell the linker about the correct segment of a near function in advance. 🤯 This is an important insight for everyone using this compiler, and I'm shocked that none of the Borland C++ books documented the interaction of code segment definitions and near references at least at this level of clarity. The TASM manuals did have a few pages on the topic of groups, but that syntax obviously doesn't apply to a C compiler. Fixup overflows in particular are such a common error and really deserved better than the unhelpful 🤷 of an explanation that ended up in the User's Guide. Maybe this whole technique of custom code segment names was considered arcane even by 1993, judging from the mere three sentences that #pragma codeseg was documented with? Still, it must have been common knowledge among Amusement Makers, because they couldn't have built these exact binaries without knowing about these details. This is the true solution to 📝 any issues involving references to near functions, and I'm glad to see that ZUN did not in fact lie to the compiler. 👍

OK, but now the remaining laser code compiles, and we get to write C++ code to draw some hitboxes during the two collision-detected states of each laser. These confirm what the low-level code from earlier already uncovered: Collision detection against lasers is done by testing a 12×12-pixel box at every 16 pixels along the length of a laser, which leaves obvious 4-pixel gaps at regular intervals that the player can just pass through. :zunpet: This adds 📝 yet 📝 another 📝 quirk to the growing list of quirks that were either intentional or must have been deliberately left in the game after their initial discovery. This is what constants were invented for, and there really is no excuse for not using them – especially during intoxicated coding, and/or if you don't have a compile-time abstraction for Q12.4 literals.

When detecting laser collisions, the game checks the player's single center coordinate against any of the aforementioned 12×12-pixel boxes. Therefore, it's correct to split these 12×12 pixels into two 6×6-pixel boxes and assign the other half to the player for a more natural visualization. Always remember that hitbox visualizations need to keep all colliding entities in mind – 📝 assigning a constant-sized hitbox to "the player" and "the bullets" will be wrong in most other cases.

Using subpixel coordinates in collision detection also introduces a slight inaccuracy into any hitbox visualization recorded in-engine on a 16-color PC-98. Since we have to render discrete pixels, we cannot exactly place a Q12.4 coordinate in the 93.75% of cases where the fractional part is non-zero. This is why pretty much every laser segment hitbox in the video above shows up as 7×7 rather than 6×6: The actual W×H area of each box is 13 pixels smaller, but since the hitbox lies between these pixels, we cannot indicate where it lies exactly, and have to err on the side of caution. It's also why Reimu's box slightly changes size as she moves: Her non-diagonal movement speed is 3.5 pixels per frame, and the constant focused movement in the video above halves that to 1.75 pixels, making her end up on an exact pixel every 4 frames. Looking forward to the glorious future of displays that will allow us to scale up the playfield to 16× its original pixel size, thus rendering the game at its exact internal resolution of 6144×5888 pixels. Such a port would definitely add a lot of value to the game…

The remaining high-level laser code is rather unremarkable for the most part, but raises one final interesting question: With no explicitly defined limit, how wide can a laser be? Looking at the laser structure's 1-byte width field and the unsigned comparisons all throughout the update and rendering code, the answer seems to be an obvious 255 pixels. However, the laser system also contains an automated shrinking state, which can be most notably seen in Mai's wheel pattern. This state shrinks a laser by 2 pixels every 2 frames until it reached a width of 0. This presents a problem with odd widths, which would fall below 0 and overflow back to 255 due to the unsigned nature of this variable. So rather than, I don't know, treating width values of 0 as invalid and stopping at a width of 1, or even adding a condition for that specific case, the code just performs a signed comparison, effectively limiting the width of a shrinkable laser to a maximum of 127 pixels. :zunpet: This small signedness inconsistency now forces the distinction between shrinkable and non-shrinkable lasers onto every single piece of code that uses lasers. Yet another instance where 📝 aiming for a cinematic 30 FPS look made the resulting code much more complicated than if ZUN had just evenly spread out the subtraction across 2 frames. 🤷
Oh well, it's not as if any of the fixed lasers in the original scripts came close to any of these limits. Moving lasers are much more streamlined and limited to begin with: Since they're hardcoded to 6 pixels, the game can safely assume that they're always thinner than the 28 pixels they get gradually widened to during their decay animation.

Finally, in case you were missing a mention of hitboxes in the previous paragraph: Yes, the game always uses the aforementioned 12×12 boxes, regardless of a laser's width.

This video also showcases the 127-pixel limit because I wanted to include the shrink animation for a seamless loop.

That was what, 50% of this blog post just being about complications that made laser difficult for no reason? Next up: The first TH01 Anniversary Edition build, where I finally get to reap the rewards of having a 100% decompiled game and write some good code for once.

🔼
🔽