| Re: [hatari-devel] Bug in Hatari 2.0 |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/hatari-devel Archives
]
- To: hatari-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [hatari-devel] Bug in Hatari 2.0
- From: Thomas Huth <th.huth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 12:06:06 +0100
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017; t=1517396768; bh=VdDnhX3A4KYpfXFtmJLlHS56KzkC4Wi8V24y4Sa+2Zc=; h=Subject:To:From:Date:From; b=cxH03LsRlQBltbAzSJePoQu7jb11PO4jKAE6HXD6JuDIJX72NOIoxpkp2XvpOuXFl xA1IH6yGsW8rbmPbZR4EvtY8rSIofmma6PMCsXQUgFfr5o761R1HQ9iXA52Qx3sbYI 3BZZv/Zq6XwHbdyYwsZSLDYkxpoBnQfHlmxYCfhUySpEIkgDLQmsgdJkfg9NLNQpG4 gvkOAedhQjBYlUnVqFYqeqnoKkf9T8ErYtoK6cumnmL/jAHujP3uRNFGCLu5Z/1rvz vwfbBi22MAVc7EFUO7hCzRbBmMYBVmg7CngAsTXXnDJOBAaC1eea39nAms5jaxTmas ZXqx9wb1hb8YA==
On 30.01.2018 23:07, Eero Tamminen wrote:
[...]
>
> I'm not so sure dialog is a good idea, because FPU selection
> might be there for Falcon & TT, so dialog is annoying if user
> just temporarily runs ST.
>> I think it's better just to output console warning.
Fine for me, too.
> Attached is a patch doing that. Although I think it's done after
> CPU core is initialized, it makes the issue also to go away.
Well, the checks in tos.c are rather for TOS-related dependencies. Since
this is not related to TOS, could you try whether you could rather add
that check to Init680x0() in cpu/hatari-glue.c instead?
Thanks,
Thomas