From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-41427-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 21642 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2005 18:11:26 -0000
Received: (qmail 21635 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Nov 2005 18:11:24 -0000
Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:11:24 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-46-90.inter.net.il [80.230.46.90])
	by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR)
	with ESMTP id CZI29903 (AUTH halo1);
	Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:45:54 +0200 (IST)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 04:01:00 -0000
Message-Id: <u7jb9954e.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Andrew STUBBS <andrew.stubbs@st.com>
CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <20051115044045.GA12833@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel
	Jacobowitz on Mon, 14 Nov 2005 23:40:45 -0500)
Subject: Re: $argc variable
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <436F35E9.4070808@st.com> <20051107133538.GA2331@nevyn.them.org> <43709E94.4070004@st.com> <u7jbisp6n.fsf@gnu.org> <4371D9A6.40109@st.com> <u3bm5sk6i.fsf@gnu.org> <43731C16.2040203@st.com> <20051113173524.GC1945@nevyn.them.org> <4378BB1A.9070606@st.com> <u7jbaim9z.fsf@gnu.org> <20051115044045.GA12833@nevyn.them.org>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00210.txt.bz2

> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 23:40:45 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: Andrew STUBBS <andrew.stubbs@st.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> The code is fine too.
> 
> Should this go on the branch?  Should it go in NEWS?  My inclination is
> "both".

Same here.