https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58312
--- Comment #6 from Brooks Moses ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5)
> Is that patch still relevant?
The relevant part of the libssp configure.ac hasn't changed much (if at all)
since I posted the patch, so I think it's still worth a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89020
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51253
--- Comment #25 from Matthijs van Duin ---
I wasn't referring to the warnings though but incorrect code generation. Since
is exhibited by pretty trivial test cases (testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist86.C
confirms that { i++, i++ } works but the anal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70792
--- Comment #8 from Matthijs van Duin ---
(In reply to Matthijs van Duin from comment #4)
> return std::pair{ ++i, ++i }.first;
My bad! This isn't an exhibit of the bug. I simply forgot that std::pair is not
really a struct, and this isn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89066
--- Comment #4 from Matthew Wuensche ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> >Built by MinGW-W64 project
>
> Can you make sure you downloaded all of the correct binaries.
Hi, um... I just uninstalled my online download... then downloa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87566
--- Comment #11 from Antony Lewis ---
I posted remaining ICE in 9.0.0 20190119 as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89069
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89069
Bug ID: 89069
Summary: ICE in select type with function returning class array
pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89063
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89068
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89067
--- Comment #1 from Antony Lewis ---
The error message on this code
subroutine test
type x
end type
type, extends(x):: y
integer ii
end type
type(y) yy
yy%i=1
end subroutine
is
Error: 'i' at (1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89068
Bug ID: 89068
Summary: Nested inline anonymous namespaces are erroneously
reported as conflicting
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89067
Bug ID: 89067
Summary: Inaccurate error message: 'i' at (1) is not a member
of the 'x' structure
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89066
--- Comment #3 from Matthew Wuensche ---
I ran the online installer... and received this file mingw-w64-install.exe.
And I reran the file to make sure all of those files were added. I found cc1
and added that path before submitting my "bug" rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89066
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>Built by MinGW-W64 project
Can you make sure you downloaded all of the correct binaries.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89066
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|*-mingw* *-cygwin* |i686-w64-mingw32
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89056
--- Comment #6 from Darryl Okahata ---
(OK, at this point, I'm just whinging, so please feel free to ignore this.)
I just wish the C++ standard instead just allowed an undefined value to be
returned, instead of generating bad optimized code. Wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89066
Bug ID: 89066
Summary: After creating valid paths, the \ in source directory
are / which creates "No such file or directory"
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88846
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Sorry, I wrote wrong PR number in the ChangeLog entry (I already fix the
number). Here is the info about the patch I've committed
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Jan 25 22:13:43 2019
New Revision: 268280
URL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89065
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89065
--- Comment #2 from baltic <1000hz.radiowave at gmail dot com> ---
Ok, i see 26.2.6.6 section of the standard:
iterator of an associative container is of the bidirectional iterator category.
For associative containers where the value type is the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89065
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
iterator and const_iterator are the same type for std::set, the elements are
always immutable...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45533
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45533&action=edit
patch
The attached patch re-arranges the code to hopefully clarify the logic.
2019-01-26 Steven G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89065
Bug ID: 89065
Summary: set::find always returns const iterator
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34871
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89044
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
OK thanks, I'll try to take a look into it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89064
Bug ID: 89064
Summary: [9 regression] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-5.c
fails starting with r268257
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87336
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87336
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 25 20:08:58 2019
New Revision: 268279
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268279&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-25 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/87336
* trans-array.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88961
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89063
Bug ID: 89063
Summary: [x86] lack of support for BEXTR from BMI extension
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88969
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88969
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Jan 25 19:50:55 2019
New Revision: 268278
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268278&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2019-01-25 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/88969
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80708
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #3)
>
> Code compiles if I delete the suspicious code.
>
Unfortunately, there is a regression in the testsuite,
and even more unfortunate, the regression comes in c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89062
ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67946
--- Comment #4 from Stupachenko Evgeny ---
fixed starting from gcc 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66835
--- Comment #5 from Stupachenko Evgeny ---
Yes, It is fixed starting from 5.3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85603
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68241
Bug 68241 depends on bug 85603, which changed state.
Bug 85603 Summary: ICE with character array substring assignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85603
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89020
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 06:40:14PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #5)
> --- snip ---
> >
> > Of course, I could b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80708
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87151
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68241
Bug 68241 depends on bug 87151, which changed state.
Bug 87151 Summary: allocating array of character
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87151
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87336
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #6)
> The patch in comment #3 seems to apply to gcc-8, but I haven't regtested it.
> Paul, do you intend to backport it?
It is regtesting on 8-branch as I write.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87937
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89020
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89062
--- Comment #2 from Barry Revzin ---
This may or may not be the same bug as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87709, I do not know.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89062
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89062
Bug ID: 89062
Summary: class template argument deduction failure with
parentheses
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
--- Comment #17 from Martin Jambor ---
OK, I did that too and proposed a patch in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg01525.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85780
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89061
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Guessing this might be another issue from pushdecl being called for
compound literals (r259641).
(Technically of course it's true that the jump misses the initialization
of the anonymous o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85780
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jan 25 17:55:25 2019
New Revision: 268277
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268277&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-25 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85780
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89024
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #6 from Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88560
--- Comment #11 from Tamar Christina ---
Hi Vladimir,
I've tested the patch and checked the testcases.
The code is now better in most cases so no issue there. The testcases will need
to be updated but I can do that after the patch is committed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88469
--- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri Jan 25 17:09:33 2019
New Revision: 268273
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268273&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
This is pretty unlikely in real code, but similar to Arm, the AArch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89055
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89037
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Fri Jan 25 16:57:32 2019
New Revision: 268272
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268272&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix output_constructor_bitfield handling of wide bitfiel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89024
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89036
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg01513.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vanyacpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77938
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89060
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87639
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89060
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80708
Vladimir Fuka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vladimir.fuka at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89049
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89060
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
And even PR 59813.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89060
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I suspect there is even older bug which reports this.
PR 77938
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #23 from Wilco ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #22)
> helps even more. On Cortex-A72 it gives a bit more than 6% (vs 3%)
> improvement on parest, and about 5.3% on a more aggressive CPU.
> I tried unrolling 8x in a similar man
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89060
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect there is even older bug which reports this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88734
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80916
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
It has internal linkage because one of its template arguments is a local class,
and it isn't instantiated because it isn't ever used. It's added to cgraph as
a possible devirtualization target.
I think the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ulidtko at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89038
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #32 from Wilco ---
Author: wilco
Date: Fri Jan 25 13:29:06 2019
New Revision: 268265
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268265&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH][AArch64] Fix generation of tst (PR87763)
The TST instruction no longer m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89060
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89012
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
You can compile the code with the '-dp' option to see which insn patterns make
up the asm code. The pattern names will be emitted as comments in the asm
output.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88878
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Applies to -fdebug-types-section as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89061
Bug ID: 89061
Summary: GCC 9 introduces false positive in -Wjump-misses-init
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89049
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 25 12:46:24 2019
New Revision: 268264
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268264&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-25 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/89049
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89028
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
I am working on a patch to generate:
[hjl@gnu-hsw-1 pr89028]$ cat x.i
void
foo (char* restrict r, char* restrict a){
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++){
r[i] += a[i];
}
}
[hjl@gnu-hsw-1 pr89028]$ make x.s
GNU C++17 9.0.1 20190125 (experimental) [trunk revision
268137] -flto -ffat-lto-objects -fdebug-types-section -g -std=gnu++17"
DW_AT_language: 4
DW_AT_name: "t.ii"
DW_AT_comp_dir: "/abuild/rguenther/trunk2-g/gcc"
DIE0: DW_TAG_structure_type (0x76896820)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89045
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88649
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
I've got a patch candidate for it, am testing that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88649
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89058
--- Comment #2 from Allan Jensen ---
Oops, sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89059
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ulrich (CCed) reported that.
If the __builtin_unreachable hint is inside of foo, we do optimize it properly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #51 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
FWIW, the (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #44)
> Created attachment 45523 [details]
> workaround
>
> So I am testing the following workaround, at least "most suitable" for
> branches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89060
Bug ID: 89060
Summary: Improve tail call optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89059
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89038
--- Comment #3 from Maxim Ivanov ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> I think this is a dup of something but I can't remember the bug number right
> now; I'll search harder later...
Eric, take a look at bug #53431, I think that's wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89059
Bug ID: 89059
Summary: Once we emit switchconf tables, we don't optimize them
anymore
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89044
--- Comment #4 from Andoni ---
I am sorry for now explaining my self good enough. I am building a GCC
toolchain for Windows: a cross-compiler one with Linux as host and a native one
with Windows as host. Both toolchains are built in a Linux mach
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89053
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89055
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89056
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, it allows it. It's undefined behaviour for your code to reach the end of
the function (because there's no return statement) so the compiler assumes that
the function will never reach that point. That m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89044
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't understand how "gcc with multilib support for linux" can produce .dll
files, so I don't understand what you're doing.
Please provide the full configure command (which is shown in the output of 'gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86865
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86865
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 25 10:12:37 2019
New Revision: 268260
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268260&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-25 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/86865
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
