[Chore] Regenerate asset headers with include guards

[Archez]

I noticed after one of the ZAPD upstream pulls, we never re-ran the gen headers command, so I've done that, but noticed there was an error in the new include guards where some header files had the same guard name. I've tweaked the include guard to now also prefix the parent folder name to increase the uniqueness of the include guards made.

I also removed the unneeded #pragma once since only the include guard is necessary now.

Ran with non-mq and mq together (mq is used last)

I'm submitting this now, as I have plans to update our xmls/headers, so I want to get this initial noise out of the way first.

Build Artifacts

• soh.otr.zip
• soh-linux-compatibility.zip
• soh-linux-performance.zip
• soh-mac.zip
• soh-switch.zip
• soh-wiiu.zip
• soh-windows.zip

[garrettjoecox]

I also removed the unneeded #pragma once since only the include guard is necessary now.

Forgive my ignorance, but don't these do the same thing? From my initial search it seems like #pragma once isn't as widely supported, but was that really an issue for our compilation setup? Seems like it's been fine thus far, and cleaner than the wrapped #ifdef method

[Archez]

I also removed the unneeded #pragma once since only the include guard is necessary now.

Forgive my ignorance, but don't these do the same thing? From my initial search it seems like #pragma once isn't as widely supported, but was that really an issue for our compilation setup? Seems like it's been fine thus far, and cleaner than the wrapped #ifdef method

Technically #pragma once is non-standard. Although the big compilers support it (gcc, msvc), include guards are "more proper".

ZAPD upstream made the switch but upstream they already removed the pragma line, but in SoH we had both.

so this PR is doing two things:

• Finishing up the switch over to include guards
• Fixing a collision with the include guards

I guess Ill leave it to @louist103 or @NEstelami to add further comments on "why" the switch was made in ZAPD.