Functions now store their base clip (the code that contains the
executing bytecode). This is because `GotoFrame` and other actions
will execute on the clip the bytecode exists on, not on `this`.
(Note that `this.gotoAndStop` uses `GetMember` actions, which
worked correctly).
`Activation` now stores `target_clip`, and `Avm1::target_clip` and
`target_clip_or_root` grab this from the current stack frame.
Renamed `start_clip` to `base_clip` to match Flash conventions.
Removed `active_clip` as this was superfluous. Now you can use
`Avm1::target_clip_or_root`.
`UpdateContext` no longer contains `target_clip` etc.
This is a very rough stub out of Stage.width and height to get
basic V-cams to start functioning.
TODO: Implement the different stage scaling modes. We will probably
want to add a "Stage" display object to handle this.
Add DisplayObject::slash_path to get the Flash 4-style slash path
to the clip. This fixes the tellTarget regression test and removes
the superfluous `target_path` from `UpdateContext`.
In Flash, this also at least claims to halt ActionScript execution on the movie. No such implementation of AVM poisoning currently exists in Ruffle, primarily because it's unclear what gets poisoned and implementing some of these options isn't yet possible:
1. AVM (e.g. all movies) - we would need to make the AVM fail silently in this case. This is the most straightforward way to poison the movie, but I'm not sure if this is how Flash actually does it, or if it poisons...
2. Movie - the current structure of movies is incompatible with adding arbitrary data to them. We need to merge `moviefetch` in before we can attach data to loaded movies.
3. MovieClip - this would also be implementable but has problems. How do child MovieClips know that their parent has been poisoned, or vice versa? What if a movie clip is loaded from one movie and moved into another?
As a result, I have decided to hold off on implementing recursion poisoning until I know where it's supposed to go and how to implement that.
While I don't expect every host object to implement it correctly, this also gets rid of a lot of unnecessary `unwrap` calls that would allow a poorly-written Flash file to kill the interpreter.
Note that host objects that do so will *not* have access to their standard representation from within member functions - you will need to extend the interface to accomodate for them. This is due to long-standing limitations with type IDs and downcasting with types that bear lifetimes - it's entirely an unsafe operation and exposing such a facility to safe Rust is unsound. However, this will at least let us separate out several things from ScriptObject that don't need to be there for the time being.
Nathan Adams