> 
> Eduardo E. Horvath wrote:
> > I'd prefer to see cpu_Debugger() nuked from orbit and go back to just
> > having Debugger() around.  It makes inserting temporary calls to
> > Debugger() a royal pain due to header dependencies and resulting link
> > errors.
> 
> You can always use cpu_Debugger() ;-)
> I don't see mcuh of problem in pulling in one more header - you
> would have to add prototype in your test code anyway, otherwise
> the code won't compile with -Wstrict-prototypes.

I have a number of places in assembly files which call Debugger() and
changing them all is a pain.  As soon as I find it annoying enough
I'll nuke it myself (if someone else doesn't beat me to it).

Anyway, if you're going to #define Debugger() it should be in an MD
file so it can be replaced with in-line assembly and the call to
Debugger() doesn't always appear on the stack.

=========================================================================
Eduardo Horvath				eeh@one-o.com
	"I need to find a pithy new quote." -- me