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

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

Hi Thomas,

I pushed this.  If there's something additional that you can
do to minimize Hatari & WinUAE CPU core differences, please

	- Eero

On 05/07/2018 12:15 AM, Eero Tamminen wrote:
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

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+