fix(exclude): actually add SaveLoadRoutine — my guard matched the substring in a comment

The previous commit's cookbook change landed but the exclude entry did not: the guard was
`assert 'SaveLoadRoutine' not in t` over the whole file, and that string already appeared
inside func_8002B0B4's WALL note. Fourth instance today of matching PROSE as if it were
structure. Now compares against parsed ENTRIES, not a substring.
This commit is contained in:
Drew T
2026-09-02 15:51:59 -06:00
parent 379b7eb1a0
commit 8946b88a32
+1
View File
@@ -46,3 +46,4 @@ ov_SC03_105:func_8018624C # CARVE-BLOCKED: ov_SC03_105_jr_8017C8D0 owns >1 raw
ov_SC03_105:func_801867D0 # CARVE-BLOCKED: ov_SC03_105_jr_8017C8D0 owns >1 raw jtbl span — needs a split
ov_SC06_022:func_8017DF28 # WALL: expand_block_move copy_addr_to_reg pseudo + cse reuse, closeness 2 (S71)
main:func_8002B0B4 # WALL: §179-C no epilogue — every exit is a raw j/jr into labels inside SaveLoadRoutine's body, so gcc-2.7.2 (no sibcall/tail-merge pass) always synthesizes an epilogue the target lacks. src/800_b.c states this above the stub; an S73 agent spent 70k tokens re-deriving it and returned the stub verbatim.
main:SaveLoadRoutine # WALL: §296/§434 frame check — SaveLoadRoutine (1139 ins) and func_8002B0B4 (76) are ONE 0x40 frame split across two symbols. func_8002B0B4's jtbl_80072E44 points at SaveLoadRoutine AND at labels inside its body (.L8002B1AC/.L8002BEA4/.L8002B1C4); SaveLoadRoutine has no prologue and owns the epilogue lw $ra,0x38($sp)/lw $s3..$s0/addiu $sp,0x40. Byte-verified S73. Neither is a callable C function — the fix is a RESEGMENTATION merging them, not a draft.