From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-12831-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 32566 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2002 18:59:38 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 32459 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2002 18:59:36 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Feb 2002 18:59:36 -0000
Received: (from mec@localhost)
	by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1GIxVZ10810;
	Sat, 16 Feb 2002 12:59:31 -0600
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:59:00 -0000
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>
Message-Id: <200202161859.g1GIxVZ10810@duracef.shout.net>
To: drow@mvista.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Select a particular mangling of a demangled symbol in lookup_block_symbol
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00446.txt.bz2

Hi Daniel,

> Meanwhile, I'd like to put this patch in because it is a strict
> improvement over what we have.

I got some sleep so that I could look at this particular patch 
with fresh eyes.

I agree with you; this patch can never do harm (as far as I can tell).
So I don't object to it.

Michael C