From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-15418-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 2471 invoked by alias); 13 May 2002 16:18:32 -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 2362 invoked from network); 13 May 2002 16:18:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 May 2002 16:18:28 -0000
Received: (from mec@localhost)
	by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g4DGIJC15903;
	Mon, 13 May 2002 11:18:19 -0500
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 09:18:00 -0000
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>
Message-Id: <200205131618.g4DGIJC15903@duracef.shout.net>
To: drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix gdb/277 by separating types, take 3
X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00466.txt.bz2

I proofread the maint.exp part and it's fine with me.

> Michael, I don't really see a need to retest this one; I verified
> carefully that the only changes were to casts (no new warnings) and to
> the one failing test.  If you prefer to, of course, I won't complain :)

I agree, I feel comfortable without testing again (it gets tested
again on the next test run anyways).

Michael C