Unlink JUTXfb, document the nondeterministic codegen problem instead

configure.py

@@ -947,7 +947,7 @@ config.libs = [
             Object(Matching,    "JSystem/JUtility/JUTDirectPrint.cpp"),
             Object(Matching,    "JSystem/JUtility/JUTAssert.cpp"),
             Object(Matching,    "JSystem/JUtility/JUTVideo.cpp"),
-            Object(MatchingFor("GZLJ01", "GZLE01", "GZLP01"),    "JSystem/JUtility/JUTXfb.cpp"),
+            Object(Equivalent,  "JSystem/JUtility/JUTXfb.cpp"),
             Object(Matching,    "JSystem/JUtility/JUTFader.cpp"),
             Object(Matching,    "JSystem/JUtility/JUTProcBar.cpp"),
             Object(Matching,    "JSystem/JUtility/JUTConsole.cpp"),

include/global.h

@@ -41,11 +41,10 @@
 #define WEAKFUNC
 #endif
 
+#ifndef __MWERKS__
 extern int __cntlzw(uint);
 extern int __rlwimi(int, int, int, int, int);
 extern void __dcbz(void*, int);
-
-#ifndef __MWERKS__
 extern void __sync();
 #endif
 

src/JSystem/JUtility/JUTXfb.cpp

@@ -72,6 +72,12 @@ JUTXfb* JUTXfb::createManager(const GXRenderModeObj* pObj, JKRHeap* pHeap, JUTXf
 
 /* 802C8410-802C8468       .text destroyManager__6JUTXfbFv */
 void JUTXfb::destroyManager() {
+    /* Nondeterministically nonmatching */
+    // MWCC randomly picks between two different possible codegen patterns for converting sManager
+    // to a bool for this JUT_CONFIRM call. It usually picks the longer pattern, which is required
+    // to match on all 3 retail versions. But it sometimes picks the shorter pattern, which is
+    // required to match on the demo version. There seems to be no consistent way to get it to pick
+    // one or the other.
     JUT_CONFIRM(VERSION_SELECT(339, 339, 344, 344), sManager);
     delete sManager;
     sManager = NULL;