https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103050
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 103050, which changed state.
Bug 103050 Summary: [12 Regression] 520.omnetpp_r miscompiled after
r12-4787-gb8ef019ab938471f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103050
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103053
--- Comment #4 from Simon Burge ---
Thanks for the explanation Jakub.
As was inferred from Andrew's comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103053#c2 we are using a trimmed
down support library for this particular application. We'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103040
--- Comment #20 from Iain Buclaw ---
I don't see any failures for this test anymore, so inclined to say yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20785
--- Comment #13 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
If the default state of these pragmas (at least with options like -std=c11) is
respectively "off", "on", "off", then changing the pragma state can safely be
ignored by the implementation, as implementation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103040
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103051
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103052
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103040
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103057
Bug ID: 103057
Summary: Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines
re-entered
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102828
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2d01bef2f214bb80dca0e91c14e95cf4d76b0afb
commit r12-4861-g2d01bef2f214bb80dca0e91c14e95cf4d76b0afb
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102828
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103057
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103057
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102714
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d60e310a4b58c713c204060db439451d90b54c47
commit r11-9201-gd60e310a4b58c713c204060db439451d90b54c47
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103052
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> I believe a possible noreturn should make the function LOOPING_{CONST,PURE}
> (LOOPING as in possibly not normally returning). Can we bisect this?
Sure, it's q
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65866
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-04-23 00:00:00 |2021-11-3
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70792
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65866
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lefticus at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102828
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103053
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103051
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I've just used gcc110.fsffrance.org machine (Power 7 machine) and I see the
following TSVC failures:
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/tsvc/vect-tsvc-s112.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects
scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20785
Pavel M changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pavel.morozkin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102943
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102943
--- Comment #11 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 51726
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51726&action=edit
untested improvement to ranger cache
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103056
Bug ID: 103056
Summary: attribute access "none" is not ignored as it should
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70792
--- Comment #10 from Matthijs van Duin ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> (In reply to Matthijs van Duin from comment #4)
> > Also bug 65866 exists for the warning itself.
>
> I think this is an exact dup.
>
> *** This bug has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102944
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
> The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2e560abff4294639a0fcf666994c30fb2f00a324
>
> commit r12-4839-g2e560
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102943
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 3 Nov 2021, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102943
>
> Aldy Hernandez changed:
>
>What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70792
--- Comment #12 from Matthijs van Duin ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> (In reply to Matthijs van Duin from comment #10)
> > I'm assuming this means a new bug should be opened
> > about the wrong code generation?
>
> Yes plea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103052
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103051
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103051
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confi
xtra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20211103 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102970
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So it looks like while we copy the array to an allocated array successfully
the call
movl$10, %edx
movq%rbp, %rsi
leaq32(%rsp), %rdi
movq%r12, 8(%rsp)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103055
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-03
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65866
Matthijs van Duin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthijsvanduin at gmail dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70792
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matthijs van Duin from comment #10)
> I'm assuming this means a new bug should be opened
> about the wrong code generation?
Yes please. This one is too confusing now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100937
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to frankhb1989 from comment #7)
> GCC and the GNU toolchain are not ELF-specific. Nor are they responsible to
> the authority of the specification.
That seems like nonsense to me. The toolchain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70796
Matthijs van Duin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthijsvanduin at gmail dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70792
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103028
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel ---
IF-convert generates the compare *after* reload. The operands get checked for
validity only by invoking the predicates. That means everything which is
accepted by TARGET_LEGITIMATE_CONSTANT_P is ok for a g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103037
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
So we value number iftmp.0_15 to _3 and things start to go downhill when we
PHI translate _25 / iftmp.0_10 5 -> 7 as _24 / _3 since there's too much
sharing of the PRE IL used for PHI translation and the VN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103033
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c081d0a3b0291297f04a05c833d2ffa8de3a7a1a
commit r12-4859-gc081d0a3b0291297f04a05c833d2ffa8de3a7a1a
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103033
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103054
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103058
Bug ID: 103058
Summary: ICE in gimple_call_static_chain_flags, at
gimple.c:1669 when building 527.cam4_r
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103058
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70796
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103057
--- Comment #3 from Dennis Lubert ---
Yes, the original testcase is valid code that compiles fine with -w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103059
Bug ID: 103059
Summary: [10 regression][VAX] ICE in postreload with the ASHIFT
form of scaled indexed addressing
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103059
Maciej W. Rozycki changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-03
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102986
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102970
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1967fd8f2197f2b0334ab0fbc26abc3d9efe56c9
commit r12-4865-g1967fd8f2197f2b0334ab0fbc26abc3d9efe56c9
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102970
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] |[11 Regression] stable_sort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103060
Bug ID: 103060
Summary: Argument initialization side-effects missing:
delegating from base constructor to inherited
constructor from virtual base
Product: gcc
Ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103061
Bug ID: 103061
Summary: [12 Regression] 527.cam4_r miscompiled with -O2
-march=znver1 since r12-4790-g4b3a325f07acebf4
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103061
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103051
--- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
vect_hw_misalign is one way though it is used in the dg-final instead of
dg-skip. There are lots of examples in other vect tests.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103061
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
The following file is miscompiled:
gfortran -c -o m_MergeSorts.fppized.o -I. -Iinclude -Inetcdf/include -O2
-march=native -g -std=legacy m_MergeSorts.fppized.f90
where first bad debug counter value is:
-fd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102943
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Macleod ---
> >
> > This is a large CFG, so a linear search of a BB, is bound to be slow.
>
> Indeed, vec should never have gotten ::contains () ... I'd have
> used a regular bitmap, not sbitmap, because we do
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103061
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
There's dump file diff (search for 'dbgcnt'):
https://gist.github.com/marxin/7eadc43d12fdefac6f5b8151a47a8684
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102943
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 3 Nov 2021, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102943
>
> --- Comment #13 from Andrew Macleod ---
>
>
> > >
> > > This is a large CFG,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103058
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> One can see it with -O2 -flto=auto -march=znver2:
>
> radsw.fppized.f90:39:19: internal compiler error: in
> gimple_call_static_chain_flags, at gimple.c:1669
>39 | subroutine radcswmx(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103055
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> Confirmed, started with r12-4852-g18f0873d1e595dc2.
Depth=0 means that we do no analysis at all and the assert test that
some analysis was done. I suppose we could ignore depth 0 and start
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103031
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Joseph Myers :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:600dcd74b8e614c996b492d97878660faf484094
commit r12-4872-g600dcd74b8e614c996b492d97878660faf484094
Author: Joseph Myers
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103031
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102670
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Ass
r/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r12-4872-20211103145922-g600dcd74b8e-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20211103 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103063
Bug ID: 103063
Summary: Wrong code while using -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59675
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103056
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102962
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Marco Mengelkoch from comment #2)
> I would understand if just the order is different or if one is much faster
> than the other.
We have two completely different implementations of std::share
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102962
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
FWIW, POSIX says this for its equivalent of lock_shared:
If the Thread Execution Scheduling option is not supported, it is
implementation-defined whether the calling thread acquires the lock when a
write
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66742
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1e7a269856fd67aff78ac874bec96d31a54b2fd9
commit r12-4873-g1e7a269856fd67aff78ac874bec96d31a54b2fd9
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
20211103145922-g600dcd74b8e-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20211103 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103058
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
It's a fortran benchmark where I was able to reduce it to 4 object files:
radae.fppized.o quicksort.fppized.o radlw.fppized.o radsw.fppized.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103064
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102988
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103063
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103065
Bug ID: 103065
Summary: [meta] atomic operations aren't optimized
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: meta-bug
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103063
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
Summary|Wrong code while
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103058
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> It's a fortran benchmark where I was able to reduce it to 4 object files:
> radae.fppized.o quicksort.fppized.o radlw.fppized.o radsw.fppized.o
Hmm, this would m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103062
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103004
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103066
Bug ID: 103066
Summary: __sync_val_compare_and_swap/__sync_bool_compare_and_sw
ap aren't optimized
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102842
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:41bea618a77dca8c1c13a3d7b883976a25d83373
commit r11-9202-g41bea618a77dca8c1c13a3d7b883976a25d83373
Author: Vladimir N.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102842
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7faffdb05aea6448b62b5d3b13009fc68dd103b
commit r10-10251-gb7faffdb05aea6448b62b5d3b13009fc68dd103b
Author: Vladimir N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103067
Bug ID: 103067
Summary: Tautological compare warning not appearing if the
self-comparison is on object members
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103067
--- Comment #1 from crillion at tiscali dot it ---
in object_member the comparison operator signature is
bool operator==(const object_member& rhs) const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100557
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||67491
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103067
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #2 from Jonath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102876
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100739
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100737
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100102
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||henrik.nortamo at csc dot fi
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103068
Bug ID: 103068
Summary: gomp_mutex_lock_slow isn't optimized
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101219
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70796
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98475
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo