Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 17:34:49 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
Message-Id: <3405-Tue26Jun2001173448+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <Pine.A41.4.05.10106260848150.34080-100000@ieva06.lanet.lv>
	(message from Andris Pavenis on Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:50:09 +0300 (WET))
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0 released
References:  <Pine DOT A41 DOT 4 DOT 05 DOT 10106260848150 DOT 34080-100000 AT ieva06 DOT lanet DOT lv>
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

> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:50:09 +0300 (WET)
> From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
> 
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Mark E. wrote:
> 
> > > That doesn't really answer my question.  Is ignoring these section a
> > > clean solution or not?
> > 
> > Yes it is.
> > 
> 
> So should I commit related patch?

Yes, please.  But I think the comment you put there should be changed:
I didn't understand that this could be a bug in Binutils.  Mark, am I
right?