[hatari-devel] 68030 Debug mode and new CPU
laurent.sallafranque at free.fr
Tue Feb 22 00:30:50 CET 2011
Because cpummu.h needs to include "main.h", should I include it only
there and make an exception to the rule ?
I've tried to include "main.h" only in xxx_files.c, but it's needed in
I'm waiting your advice before committing.
Le 21/02/2011 21:55, Eero Tamminen a écrit :
> 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
>> Le 21/02/2011 21:10, Eero Tamminen a écrit :
>>> On maanantai 21 helmikuu 2011, Laurent Sallafranque wrote:
>>>> It seems to work for me, no regression detected.
>>>> 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:
>>> 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
>> hatari-devel mailing list
>> hatari-devel at lists.berlios.de
> hatari-devel mailing list
> hatari-devel at lists.berlios.de
More information about the hatari-devel