--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-18
06:11 ---
There were two major patches which went in during this time. The CFG inliner
and the Jeff Law's patch,
either could have caused this.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-18 06:09
---
Do you still reproduce this? I suppose I've not bootstrapped with anything
other than alphaev67 in a while, so this might be an ev4 bug...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21323
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-18 06:04
---
*** Bug 20089 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-18
06:04 ---
*** Bug 21640 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-18
06:04 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21173 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-18 06:04
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18434 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
St
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-18 05:57
---
This happens on Linux as well.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From arjones at simultan dot dyndns dot org
2005-05-18 04:41 ---
Created an attachment (id=8916)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8916&action=view)
Compressed (otherwise 250K) standalone preprocessed source file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
I will attach default.c (preprocessed, completely standalone) as soon as
bugzilla gives me the chance. Here what happens:
<55 [EMAIL PROTECTED] /tmp>gcc -c -O3 -o default.o default.c
default.c: In function 'print_defaults':
default.c:673: internal compiler error: in get_indirect_ref_operands, at
t
--- Additional Comments From anh_vn_vo at yahoo dot com 2005-05-18 01:06
---
After further checking, the run-time support was not built. In fact, running
any Ada code containing Ada task triggers "failed run-time assertion : Tasking
not implemented on this configuration" error message.
--- Additional Comments From daney at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-18 01:05
---
libjava.lang/Process_3.java should now fail if 'sed' is not available.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-18
01:00 ---
Subject: Bug 18220
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-18 01:00:16
Modified files:
libjava: ChangeLog
libjava/testsuite/
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-18
00:52 ---
Subject: Bug 18220
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-18 00:52:17
Modified files:
libjava: Change
The SPEC CPU2000 tests bzip2, gap, and gcc cause mainline GCC to
segfault when built on powerpc64-linux with:
-m32 -O2 -ftree-vectorize -maltivec -mabi=altivec \
--param ggc-min-expand=0 --param ggc-min-heapsize=0
With LAST_UPDATED: "Tue May 17 13:57:35 UTC 2005" in a unified tree, it
built (with one new test failing compared to "Tue May 17 06:38:21 UTC 2005").
With "Tue May 17 19:08:13 UTC 2005", I get:
...
/home/hp/combined/cris-sim/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/hp/combined/cris-sim/./gcc/
-nostdinc -B/home/hp/combin
Version:
gcc-java-4.0.0-5 from FC4 rawhide
Test Case:
import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.InputStream;
import java.net.URL;
public class URLTest {
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
// replace this with any jar on your system
--- Additional Comments From t dot muhlhofer at lse dot ac dot uk
2005-05-17 22:15 ---
Oh... damn!
Shoulda seen this.
Thanks! Sorry about the bug.
T
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21633
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21128
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
22:10 ---
Your glibc headers do not match the library which you have installed.
--
What|Removed |Added
The following code we miss one ccp optimization:
struct f
{
int i;
};
int g()throw()
{
f a;
a.i = 1;
f *a1 = &a;
int *i = &a1->i;
return *i; /* This should be turned into a.i */
}
We get right now:
Visiting statement:
a1_3 = &a;
Lattice value changed to CONSTANT &a. Adding SSA edges
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-17 22:00
---
> One of HJ's patches is a middle-end patch, and I'm not sure I know
> enough to review it. I'd have to start by researching the ELF spec, for
> example, and we've found that various version of binutils have wei
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-17 21:58
---
Subject: Re: libstdc++ headers should have pop/push
of the visibility around the declarations
hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-05-17 21:50
> ---
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
21:55 ---
*** Bug 21634 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
21:55 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21250 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From jconner at apple dot com 2005-05-17 21:50
---
Patch committed to mainline on 13 May 2005.
--
What|Removed |Added
URL|
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-05-17 21:50 ---
Mark, is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00180.html
OK for mainline as well as 4.0?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
21:47 ---
Subject: Bug 19664
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-17 21:47:13
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog decl2.c
Log message:
executing the below code snippet in jython:
gcc version 4.0.1 20050508 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.0-6)
Jython 2.1
import javax.swing as swing
win = swing.JFrame("JYTHON")
win.size = (100, 100)
win.show()
and closing the window from the window manager results in the following:
(.:29481): GLib-GObj
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-17 21:40
---
Subject: Re: libstdc++ headers should have pop/push
of the visibility around the declarations
pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-17 19:05
> -
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-05-17 21:39 ---
(In reply to comment #44)
I've tested PR19664 patch + updated PR20218 patch + v3 patch
and they work fine on amd64. I'll test fixes soon on powerpc
on testcase from PR21382 too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
gcc version 4.1.0 20050517 (experimental)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% cpp-4.0 < /dev/null
# 1 ""
# 1 ""
# 1 ""
# 1 ""
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% cpp < /dev/null
# 1 ""
# 0 ""
# 1 ""
# 1 ""
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% cpp < /de
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-05-17 21:24
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > - yes, however as the loigical extention of:
> >"a null reference is undefined" => "may trap" => "will trap"
> >is simply wrong, and is not justify
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17 21:12
---
Particularly the change that matters is ia64_expand_load_address, which no
longer splits it. src is small_addr_symbolic_operand in this case.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21632
The bootstrap fails in, I believe, stage 3 on a server with 4 x86_64 CPUs
running Suse. Same thing happens with version 3.4.3. This particular one was
done with make -j 2, but I also tried on one cpu and the same thing happens.
I did configure and make in an object directory different from the one
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|daney at gcc dot gnu dot org|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
||dot org
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From yhlin at sdesigns dot com 2005-05-17 20:44
---
Reading the output assembly twice, it's true that they are equivalent, it's
just that the div is run in the branch delay slot of bnez in the firt case.
It seems we need strict prologue/epilogue for __asm__ stat
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18893
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |daney at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |daney at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW
struct S
{
void *s[256];
};
struct T
{
long t[23];
struct S *u;
};
extern struct T
#ifdef __ia64__
__attribute__((model (small)))
#endif
v;
void *
foo (void)
{
return v.u->s[0];
}
ICEs on gcc-4_0-branch at -O2, but did not ICE before the PR target/21412 patch
was checked in.
The only di
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
20:17 ---
Note T(T&) is still a copy constructor, just not one which takes a constant
reference.
Also note:
it really bolls down to this testcase:
int f(int&);
int f();
int g(void)
{
return f(1);
}
If we get rid
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
20:12 ---
Great, a typo contest. :-)
But the first one comes from you, Dzianis.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-05-17
20:01 ---
Subject: Re: wrong code in sixtrack for -fmodulo-sched
The patch fixes the problem with sixtrack.
I suspected that a latent problem was causing the earlier failures in
lucas and apsi which have since gone
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
20:00 ---
Confirmed, simple example:
struct f
{
f(f&);
};
int g(void)
{
f a = f();
}
--
What|Removed |Added
If I define a copy constructor as T(T&) rather than the correct T(const T&),
I'll end up with messages of the form:
| > keyed_obj.hh:159: error: no matching function for call to
'CxnIndex::CxnIndex(CxnIndex)'
| > Indeces.hh:150: note: candidates are: CxnIndex::CxnIndex(CxnIndex&)
which is bafflin
--- Additional Comments From dzianis dot mazuronak at gmx dot net
2005-05-17 19:39 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Huh, you did not configure with "--diable-multilib".
No, I did it! Check the configuration more closely:
The gcc-4.0.0 is configured as follow:
Using built-in specs.
Target
--- Additional Comments From flash at pobox dot com 2005-05-17 19:29
---
Created an attachment (id=8915)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8915&action=view)
-v -save-temps output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21613
--- Additional Comments From flash at pobox dot com 2005-05-17 19:28
---
Created an attachment (id=8914)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8914&action=view)
Pre-processed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21613
--- Additional Comments From amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
19:20 ---
updated patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01768.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20211
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-17 19:05
---
> This patch looks sensible to me, but it should be approved by a V3
> maintainer.
Thanks a lot Mark, I'll try to get to it soon. But, the real reason we don't
have those bits already is that there are outstandin
The failure
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-none.c scan-tree-dump-times vectorized 1 loops 1
appeared on mainline on i686-pc-linux-gnu between 20050516 and 20050517. It may
not be straightforward to tell which patch was responsible since the test ICEd
(bug 21448) with the former compiler and a pass or
--- Additional Comments From echristo at redhat dot com 2005-05-17 18:20
---
After talking with jason I think this is a legitimate request.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
18:10 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
18:05 ---
Hmm, this is undefined code IIRC.
Also this has been failing since "3.5.0 20040909".
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21614
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
18:03 ---
in .t02.orginal, we get:
<<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt
<<< error >>> >>>
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21614
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||21629
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21247
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||21247
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21629
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-05-17 17:52
---
Confirmed. Here is a simpler case:
-
extern void findme();
struct Z *p;
void (Z::*m) ();
void rr () {
findme();
(p->*m)();
findme();
}
--
if one greps for th
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
17:48 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Hmm, I think we get an error mark node but no error.
> Why is this the wrong code? It's easy to execute it.
No the wrong-code keyword says that GCC is
--- Additional Comments From arjanv at redhat dot com 2005-05-17 17:44
---
As for andrews comment, the default could be hidden/private, where "export"
would override the default to be non-private.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From yuri at tsoft dot com 2005-05-17 17:38 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Hmm, I think we get an error mark node but no error.
Why is this the wrong code? It's easy to execute it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21614
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
17:35 ---
We now get:
dX.D.2296.D.2252.domain_m[0].D.2209.D.2200.D.2154.domain_m = 1;
dX.D.2296.D.2252.domain_m[1].D.2209.D.2200.D.2154.domain_m = 0;
k.D.2296.D.2252.domain_m[0].D.2209.D.2200.D.2154.domain_m = 0
--- Additional Comments From arjanv at redhat dot com 2005-05-17 17:33
---
I think you mean bug 18267
However bug 18267 is about static versus non-static linkage.
What I'm suggesting is visibility attribute level, eg non-static but hidden
visibility.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
17:31 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC build triplet|GCC 4.1.0 20050517 |
GCC host triplet|i686-pc-linux-gnu |
GCC target triplet||i686-pc
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
17:30 ---
*** Bug 21622 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
17:30 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19358 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
17:24 ---
*** Bug 21626 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
17:24 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21478 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
17:23 ---
Hmm, I think we get an error mark node but no error.
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Just in case you did not get this before, the mail server which I was
using
broke for a second.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: May 17, 2005 12:50:33 PM EDT
To: Marcel van Kervinck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: (fwd) Bug in gcc4 i
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-05-17 17:03 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Reload may
generate stores to read-only memory
On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 16:52 +, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot
On May 17, 2005, at 11:39 AM, Marcel van Kervinck wrote:
Dear all,
1. Is this a compiler bug or a display of undefined behaviour?
This is a compiler bug
2. Is this gcc4-specific or only in combination with PowerPC?
This bug is only in Apple's gcc and not in the FSF released GCC.
Please report this
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-05-17 16:41
---
This is already fixed in gcc4.0 which says
g/x> /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-4*/bin/c++ -c x.cc
x.cc:5: error: ISO C++ forbids declaration of ‘T’ with no type
x.cc: In instantiation of ‘B’:
x.cc:14: instantiat
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
16:40 ---
Confirmed, it is a regression from 3.2.3.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-05-17 16:39
---
Andrew's argument has been made a number of times, and is considered
irrelevant
until someone actually comes around and implements the 'export' keyword.
This request is therefore definitely valid, but I close
--
Bug 19986 depends on bug 17141, which changed state.
Bug 17141 Summary: *&a->b is not folded
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17141
What|Old Value |New Value
--
Bug 19626 depends on bug 17141, which changed state.
Bug 17141 Summary: *&a->b is not folded
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17141
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-05-17 16:39 ---
Fixed with this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01726.html
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-05-17 16:37
---
All gcc versions I have take the template in namespace odd, and so does
icc in strict mode. I see nothing in 3.4.2 that should prevent this
from happening. What is relevant here is that the using declaration i
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-05-17 16:33 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01726.html
Further helps this situation in both testcases referenced below. Basically
it removes the unwanted ADDR_EXPRs earlier in the optimization path. While the
resu
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-05-17 16:27
---
Discussing the exact wording is nitpicking. The problem is real so let's
confirm this PR.
W.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
The minimum requirements referenced in install.texi for GNAT seem to be out of
date. Someone more Ada knowledgeable needs to confirm a minimum version for
4.0.0 and 4.1.0.
For sure, to avoid problems building a cross GNAT, you should have a native GNAT
version that is the same as the version yo
I first posted this problem at [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was advice to post my
problem here.
I have a program with many many inline template functions.
It is essential for the execution speed that every (or almost every) function
marked as inline, becomes really inlined by the compiler.
I already com
-- forwarded message --
Path: news.xs4all.nl!newsspool.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Sender: Marcel van Kervinck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Marcel van Kervinck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Bug in gcc4 initialisers suspected
Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.lang.c
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.or
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||gkajmowi at tbaytel dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21627
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
15:29 ---
Created an attachment (id=8913)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8913&action=view)
test case, compile with -Wall
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21627
compiling with -Wall gives the following erroneous errors about the ctor and
dtor -- but not about the method.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:33>g++ foo.ii -Wall -c
foo.ii:4: warning: inline function `TPL::TPL() [with T = int]' used but
never defined
foo.ii:5: warning: inline function `TPL::~TPL() [with T =
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/projet/gujin$ cat tmp.c
typedef struct {
enum { INIT = 0 } mode;
unsigned very_big_array[4096];
struct short_struct { int a,b,c; } str[5];
} z_stream;
struct short_struct fct (unsigned val) {
z_stream gzlib = { .mode = INIT }; /*
--- Additional Comments From sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2005-05-17
15:07 ---
Created an attachment (id=8912)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8912&action=view)
Test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21625
The attached test case does not initialize to NULL() the inner pointers after an
ALLOCATE statement.
Note that the problem only surfaces if the heap is sufficiently dirty.
- output ---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] TEMP]$ gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Conf
--- Additional Comments From mustafa at il dot ibm dot com 2005-05-17
15:05 ---
Janis, can you try this patch?
Index: modulo-sched.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/modulo-sched.c,v
retrieving revision 1.29
diff -c -p -r1.29
--- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17 14:53
---
*** Bug 20088 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17 14:53
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21624 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
St
--- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17 14:53
---
.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resol
--- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17 14:49
---
*** Bug 18945 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17 14:49
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21624 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
St
--- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17 14:49
---
*** Bug 20088 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17 14:49
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21264 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
St
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
