andrew/libakgl
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests 1 Actions 1 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Report the overlap akgl_collide_rectangles could not see

Browse Source 
It asked whether either rectangle enclosed one of the other's four corners --
eight akgl_collide_point_rectangle calls, stopping at the first hit. That is a
different question from "do these overlap", and it has the wrong answer for one
arrangement: a tall thin rectangle crossing a short wide one overlaps in a plus
sign with no corner of either inside the other, and all eight tests said no.

A long thin platform crossing a tall thin character is exactly that shape, so
this is a shape a 2D game produces, not a curiosity. util.h carried an @note
describing it and docs/18-utilities.md had a diagram of it, both under the
heading of a limitation rather than a defect, and there was no test for it at
all -- nor for full containment, nor for a shared edge.

It is four comparisons now, on both axes. `<=` rather than `<` because
akgl_collide_point_rectangle is inclusive on all four edges and these two have
always agreed that touching counts; a span test written with `<` would have
silently changed a contract both the header and the manual state.

The test was written first and failed on the cross before the fix went in.

Two answers change for a caller upgrading, and both are in the header note and
the chapter:

- The cross reports `true`, which is the point.
- The comparison is in float rather than through akgl_Point's int members, so a
  sub-pixel overlap is no longer truncated away. A pickup test that was
  accidentally forgiving by up to a pixel is no longer forgiving. Both tutorials
  use this for coins and hazards; both still pass.

Faster as a side effect rather than a goal, and worth recording because the
numbers move a documented budget: 24.9 ns -> 6.1 overlapping, 57.9 -> 6.1
disjoint, and the all-pairs sweep over 64 actors 115 us -> 12.2. The disjoint
case gained most because it was the one that ran all eight tests before
answering.

The three moved rows are re-recorded in PERFORMANCE.md and nothing else is.
akgl_rectangle_points is untouched by this change and reads 6.1 in the same run
against the 4.0 recorded, so 6 ns is this run's floor and the new figure means
"too cheap to measure" rather than "exactly 6.1" -- said in the prose so the
next reader does not re-baseline the table around it.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Code <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Andrew Kesterson
2026-08-01 23:12:01 -04:00
parent 943bf4324e
commit 842ef75ddf
6 changed files with 158 additions and 75 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
docs/01-introduction.md
View File

@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ software-rasterized. At 60 fps a frame is 16.67 ms:
| Part of the frame | Cost | Share of 16.67 ms |
|---|---:|---:|
| Logic: 64 actor updates + one physics sweep | 0.006 ms | 0.03% |
| All-pairs collision over 64 actors, if you do it | 0.115 ms | 0.7% |
| All-pairs collision over 64 actors, if you do it | 0.012 ms | 0.07% |
| Clear + present | 0.023 ms | 0.1% |
| 64 actor renders (48x48 blits) | 0.191 ms | 1.1% |
| 1200 tile blits | 16.26 ms | 97.6% |