https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65646
Bug ID: 65646
Summary: ICE in invalid syntax
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65645
Bug ID: 65645
Summary: --without-system-zlib has no impact in gcc directory
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7125
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65540
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, this patch extends the calls.c hack:
Index: calls.c
===
--- calls.c (revision 221805)
+++ calls.c (working copy)
@@ -1321,6 +1321,15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65644
Bug ID: 65644
Summary: Assembler errors on Solaris 10 x86-64: `(%eXX)' is not
a valid 64 bit base/index expression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65540
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65643
Bug ID: 65643
Summary: FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/swapcontext-test-1.c on
powerpc64
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65479
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 35196
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35196&action=edit
Proof-of-concept patch.
Two problems are contributing to the failures in these tests:
1) a missing -fasynchrono
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61978
Stewart Martin-Haugh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stewart.martin-haugh at cern
dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61977
--- Comment #8 from David Rivshin ---
I briefly tested the patch, and it does fix the ICE in the case where the
conditional macro is the last token.
However it does not fix the situation where there are more (non-blank) lines
after the condition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Does the following patch:
>
> --- config/picflag.m4 2013-11-18 09:59:08.420212365 +0100
> +++ config/picflag.m4 2015-03-31 18:36:21.989401000 +0200
> @@ -9,7 +9,9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #46 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #45)
> > Like Richard wrote in comment 38 it is "phase opt and generate" that
> > regresses
>
> Yes, but is it regression because of one specific pass shown later
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63731
--- Comment #33 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
Created attachment 35195
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35195&action=edit
"Fallback" netgo solution for gccgo
This patch updates the libgo Makefile to build and install the li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #45 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Like Richard wrote in comment 38 it is "phase opt and generate" that regresses
Yes, but is it regression bcause of one specific pass shown later or is it just
a cummulative
effect of many little slowdown?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #44 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #43)
> Markus, can you reproduce some consistent growth in -ftime-report for one of
> passes? Given that code size difference is solved (please try to double
> che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka ---
Yep, it seems the problem is triggered on and off with random changed in the
inliner's decisions...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65398
--- Comment #16 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Mitsuru Kariya from comment #15)
> I have opened a new issue bug 65642.
Thanks.
> (Sorry, I made a mistake in operation so its description is empty.)
That is fine. :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65398
--- Comment #15 from Mitsuru Kariya ---
I have opened a new issue bug 65642.
(Sorry, I made a mistake in operation so its description is empty.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60950
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61977
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61977
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |preprocessor
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65642
Mitsuru Kariya changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|GCC rejects valid constant |[C++11] GCC rejects valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65642
Bug ID: 65642
Summary: GCC rejects valid constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65390
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65390
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Mar 31 17:35:29 2015
New Revision: 221799
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221799&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65390
* tree.c (build_cplus_array_type): Use dependent_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #43 from Jan Hubicka ---
Markus, can you reproduce some consistent growth in -ftime-report for one of
passes? Given that code size difference is solved (please try to double check
that, we may have slightly different revisions of tram
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #42 from Jan Hubicka ---
Sorry, accidental message.
It is 69->80.5s between 141127.61083 and 150113.26056 (tester was down)
66->69s between 141123.15275 and 141124.01653
60->64 between 140807.80282 and 140808.66762
Now t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61977
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64190
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58945
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #41 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK. I can actually look it up in raw files.
It is: 69s->80s between
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58945
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Mar 31 17:06:37 2015
New Revision: 221798
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221798&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/58945
* config/i386/sync.md (atomic_compare_and_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65641
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
An ABI change is not an option, although an alternative functor could be
provided as an optional extension.
There was a related thread a year ago starting at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2014-03/msg000
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61977
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||JamesMikeDuPont@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65638
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Does the following patch:
--- config/picflag.m42013-11-18 09:59:08.420212365 +0100
+++ config/picflag.m42015-03-31 18:36:21.989401000 +0200
@@ -9,7 +9,9 @@ case "${$2}" in
*-*-darwin*)
# PI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61977
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
See also pr65638 for a similar problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But -mdynamic-no-pic can be overridden with -fPIC -mno-dynamic-no-pic , right?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65398
--- Comment #14 from Marek Polacek ---
I see. Luckily these didn't regress with my fix for this PR, so I think these
are separate issues. Could you please open a new PR? I'll see if I can fix
these new ones.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65638
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
BOOT_CFLAGS has included -mdynamic-no-pic for a long time (before my time
here), so I'm not aware of what criteria were discussed then, however
-mdynamic-non-pic cannot be overridden by fPIC.
I don't have spa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42159
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth.at.gcc at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #33 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
On 03/31/2015 05:25 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
>
> --- Comment #30 from Richard Biener ---
> (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #28)
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65540
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7)
> > Without having a Windows machine, what is the easiest way to reproduced the
> > problem? Can I reproduce the problem with cross compiler?
>
> Yes, configure for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #40 from Jan Hubicka ---
-O3 graph http://gcc.opensuse.org/c++bench/tramp3d/split-build.html seems to
show 3 bigger increases recently. Can we get the revisions for those?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65557
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Fixed in 5.0.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65540
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Without having a Windows machine, what is the easiest way to reproduced the
> problem? Can I reproduce the problem with cross compiler?
Yes, configure for the target indicated in the field above.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
--- Comment #15 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
It really started with r219076 aka ipa-inline sreal conversion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65398
--- Comment #13 from Mitsuru Kariya ---
Thank you for your quick response.
But unfortunately, I found problems like below.
== sample code 1 ==
constexpr char f(const char* s)
{
return *(s +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65540
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Without having a Windows machine, what is the easiest way to reproduced the
problem? Can I reproduce the problem with cross compiler?
Thanks,
Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #39 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hi, yep, -Os or flatten is unchanged. It seems something regress with -O3
inline decisions but it is somewhat hard
to pinpoint. I am on a way to Victoria, so I will do more only tonight.
https://gcc.gnu.org/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63731
--- Comment #32 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
I have a prototype working for #2. I am assuming #1 would not be accepted.
This fix consists of building a library called libnetgo.a which consists of the
net files that would be built if the netg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
--- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #13)
> Started with r220011.
But that doesn't make too much sense and indeed when I
use an earlier version of the reduced testcase it still
crashes with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42159
--- Comment #30 from Pierre Ossman ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #29)
> I can reopen the PR, but I don't see the point:
> (1) I can reproduce the problem only on x86_64-apple-darwin10 with gcc
> version 4.4.7
> (I get 'CAUGHT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52340
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35191|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42159
--- Comment #29 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I'd like to reopen this issue as we are still seeing this with as new gcc
> as 4.8.4 (we've been unable to build anything newer). Unfortunately I do
> not seem to have the access rights to reopen th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #38 from Richard Biener ---
Looks that compile-time with -Dleafify=flatten is basically unchanged. So it
is definitely different inlining decisions for tram3d-v4.cpp. Maybe we inline
a lot more early now (due to early-insn param cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65554
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
I think the original testcase and the reduced testcase point out to different
issues. The issue with the testcase in comment 1 is that we don't reject the
user-provided definition of std::initializer_list (i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59406
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #37 from Stupachenko Evgeny ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #31)
> No negative effects seen. Update on the regression? P3->P1 before
> willfully downgrading later...
Compiled with "-Ofast -flto -funroll-loops -m32" and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #36 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #35)
> Firefox LTO buildtime on ppc64le: 5:18.12 total vs. 4:48.85 total = 6.25%
Please ignore the Firefox buildtime comparison. It was a measuring error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42159
Pierre Ossman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ossman at cendio dot se
--- Comment #28
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65554
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #6)
> --- a/gcc/cp/call.c
> +++ b/gcc/cp/call.c
> @@ -6366,7 +6366,8 @@ convert_like_real (conversion *convs, tree expr, tree
> fn, int argnum,
> field = next_ini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #35 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
POWER8 : 23.424 vs. 20.676 = 11.7316%
Firefox LTO buildtime on ppc64le: 5:18.12 total vs. 4:48.85 total = 6.25%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65554
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65554
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56100
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|paolo.carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65641
Bug ID: 65641
Summary: unordered_map - __detail::_Mod_range_hashing is slow
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65640
Bug ID: 65640
Summary: multiple alternative constraints and earlyclobbers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #34 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #33)
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2015, trippels at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
> >
> > --- Comment #32 from Markus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015, trippels at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
>
> --- Comment #32 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53727
--- Comment #11 from ioctl at yandex dot ru ---
Unfortunately I cannot check this problem existance using last gcc versions due
to a large number compilation errors in another files of old firefox 12.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65542
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65501
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53743
--- Comment #10 from ioctl at yandex dot ru ---
Unfortunately I cannot check this problem existance using last gcc versions due
to a large number compilation errors in another files.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56100
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #3)
> I wonder if in such cases would it simply make sense to suppress the warning
> basing on the locations
I think we want to suppress the warning on instantiation e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65625
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65618
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65582
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65564
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35158|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65550
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|NE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
And can somebody bisect this with -flto-partition=max (and or reduce further)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> i686-apple-darwin is a secondary arch and supposedly (but not verified?)
> affected.
> A workaround is to disable building of libcc1 (but it's enabled by default
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65540
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65489
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #32 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #31)
> No negative effects seen. Update on the regression? P3->P1 before
> willfully downgrading later...
It depends on the target machine. On amdfam10 it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #21 from Richard Bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65243
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #31 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64132
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65638
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64le-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65638
--- Comment #3 from James Michael DuPont ---
This test case can be reduced to just a file with the word bool in it.
```
bool
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #32
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
