Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 00:20:31 +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: <8361-Sat30Sep2000002031+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: <200009291643.SAA23857@father.ludd.luth.se> (message from Martin
	Str|mberg on Fri, 29 Sep 2000 18:43:58 +0200 (MET DST))
Subject: Re: (fwd) startup-code
References:  <200009291643 DOT SAA23857 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 18:43:58 +0200 (MET DST)
> 
> Ok. Is this ok as wc204.txi entry:
> "@cindex lib/djgpp DOT djl AT r{, polluting the namespace unnecessarily}
> The linker script @code{lib/djgpp.djl} corrected to not unnecessarily
> pollute the name space with the symbols @code{etext}, @code{edata} and
> @code{end}."

I'd rather index this with "@cindex linker script", not lib/djgpp.djl.
An index entry for the symbols would also be useful (in case someone
doesn't remember that the problems was related to the linker script).