From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12175 invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2003 21:30:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10584 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2003 21:30:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jun 2003 21:30:11 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5JLUBH32680 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:30:11 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5JLUBI06644; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:30:11 -0400 Received: from [150.1.200.14] (vpn50-66.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.66]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5JLUAd30673; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:30:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFA] varobj: call CHECK_TYPEDEF From: Keith Seitz To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: "gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com" In-Reply-To: <20030619204118.GC2379@nevyn.them.org> References: <3EA84A9B.5020308@redhat.com> <1051221433.1534.72.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> <3EA8629B.50603@redhat.com> <1055362509.1571.63.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> <1055378162.1571.98.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> <20030612012810.GA21583@nevyn.them.org> <20030619192845.GA2379@nevyn.them.org> <20030619194513.GA7225@nevyn.them.org> <1056055095.1577.10.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> <20030619204118.GC2379@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1056058722.1577.13.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:30:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00643.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 13:41, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > I've checked it in. Thanks! > I can't edit the insight PR database, though. I guess I mistakenly thought that all those with access to gdb would have access to insight. I guess not. I'll close it. Thank you (and David) again for looking into this. Keith