Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 00:37:50 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT inter DOT net DOT il
To: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <9628-Sat30Sep2000003750+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.2.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5h
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <200009291716.TAA23977@father.ludd.luth.se> (message from Martin
	Str|mberg on Fri, 29 Sep 2000 19:16:25 +0200 (MET DST))
Subject: Re: (fwd) startup-code
References:  <200009291716 DOT TAA23977 AT father DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 19:16:25 +0200 (MET DST)
> 
> -extern int etext;
> +extern int etext __asm__("etext");

Looks fine to me.

> Should I write a wc204.txi entry or is this a minor bug that don't
> need one?

No, this is an internal library change that isn't visible to
applications (since previously, applications couldn't use `etext' at
all).  So I think it doesn't need a separate entry.

However, you might mention in the entry for the linker script that the
profiling code was also changed as part of the same change.