Re: [hatari-devel] Handing WinUAE CPU core write_log()

[Eero Tamminen <oak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 05/06/2018 11:13 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Am Sun, 6 May 2018 18:28:00 +0300
> schrieb Eero Tamminen <oak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > What do you think of the attached way of handling
> > WinUAE CPU core write_log()?
> >
> > It uses C99 feature to map write_log() to Log_Printf()
> > instead of the bWriteLog stuff you added a while ago.
>
> Basically a good idea, but does that really work? IIRC I once tried
> something similar, but I ran into some problems ... isn't write_log
> also required for build68k and gencpu? But we do not link the log
> code to these binaries, do we? Have you tried rebuilding Hatari
> completely this way?

build68k and gencpu do get rebuilt when changing these headers,
and the did need changing[1], so they do work with it.  I guess
they get nowadays linked with the log code.

[1] build68k for abort() macro, and gencpu for commenting out
its version of write_log().


> Anyway, you certainly don't need these "C99" comments in the sourcecode
> here - we already use __VA_ARGS__ in a couple of places already, so this is
> already a prerequisite for building Hatari.

Ok, that's great to know!  I was afraid there would still be
problems on Windows or something...


	- Eero