[hatari-devel] 68030 Debug mode and new CPU

[Eero Tamminen]

Hi,

On maanantai 21 helmikuu 2011, Laurent Sallafranque wrote:
> OK Eero,
> 
> But as likely is also used in cpummu.h, shouldn't I include "main.h"
> only in cpummu.h ?

There are some Hatari include files which include other includes, but Thomas
thinks it's better to do the inclusions in C-files, otherwise you could get
into funny issues despite the header ifdef multiple-inclusion protection.

Thomas, what were the issues into which you've run with that?


	- Eero

> Regards
> 
> Laurent
> 
> Le 21/02/2011 21:10, Eero Tamminen a écrit :
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On maanantai 21 helmikuu 2011, Laurent Sallafranque wrote:
> >> It seems to work for me, no regression detected.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> >> Le 20/02/2011 23:07, Eero Tamminen a écrit :
> >>> Btw. While testing the compilation, I noticed this in cpu/cpummu.h:
> >>> 	#define likely(x) x
> >>> 	#define unlikely(x) x
> >>> 
> >>> Why the optimization macros from main.h (intended to mark code
> >>> branches as cold/hot) are nullified?
> > 
> > They were already in your original import of this file:
> > http://hg.berlios.de/repos/hatari/file/026e498bd040/src/cpu/cpummu.h
> > 
> > Is it just just that the WinUAE author didn't know how to properly
> > check for GCC version when he imported the MMU code from Aranym?
> > 
> > Maybe you could just remove them and add:
> > 	#include "main.h"
> > 
> > to any C-file that gets compiler warning after that?
> > 
> > 	- Eero
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > hatari-devel mailing list
> > hatari-devel at lists.berlios.de
> > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/hatari-devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> hatari-devel mailing list
> hatari-devel at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/hatari-devel