https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100398
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100398
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409
Bug ID: 100409
Summary: C++ FE elides pure throwing call
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100355
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #2)
> Tried that, but it's not taken into account.
>
> ieee.exp uses c-torture-execute, maybe that function does not honor dg
> directives? (none of the tests under i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91914
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 4 May 2021, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91914
>
> Martin Sebor changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100408
Bug ID: 100408
Summary: [nvptx][OpenMP] Enable SIMT for user-defined reduction
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization, openmp
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99210
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I think the patch works fine as is as far as I can tell. There will be a
similar fix for writing files with encoding='utf8'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100407
Bug ID: 100407
Summary: New test cases attr-retain-*.c fail after their
introduction in r11-7284
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334
Thomas Rodgers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Rodge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334
Thomas Rodgers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83819
Bug 83819 depends on bug 91914, which changed state.
Bug 91914 Summary: [9 Regression] Invalid strlen optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91914
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91914
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91914
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Martin Sebor
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:176e7fa198dd50aca4c882c74fc8f4386a3f9131
commit r9-9501-g176e7fa198dd50aca4c882c74fc8f4386a3f9131
Author: Martin Sebor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334
Thomas Rodgers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100405
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100405
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Another option would be to add an implicit __builtin_trap() there. Failing hard
is probably preferable to the kind of surprising behaviour you get from the
optimizers today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100355
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
Tried that, but it's not taken into account.
ieee.exp uses c-torture-execute, maybe that function does not honor dg
directives? (none of the tests under ieee/ has a dg- directive)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46224
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-10-01 00:00:00 |2021-5-3
Blocks|87403
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100406
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-03
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100406
Bug ID: 100406
Summary: bogus/missing -Wmismatched-new-delete
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100180
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100286
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70834
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-01-03 00:00:00 |2021-5-3
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100351
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100321
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100321
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tom de Vries :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f87990a2a8fc9e20d30462a0a4c9047582af0cd9
commit r12-395-gf87990a2a8fc9e20d30462a0a4c9047582af0cd9
Author: Tom de Vries
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100366
--- Comment #3 from Sam Varshavchik ---
If the warning is justified then something else isn't adding up.
I double-checked (with cppreference.com) something that I was pretty sure of:
and an insert() at the end() iterator is valid. The insert()e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100403
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100403
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100405
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|missing return assignment |Add implicit 'return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85523
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100405
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100405
Bug ID: 100405
Summary: missing return assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100403
--- Comment #2 from lavr at ncbi dot nlm.nih.gov ---
> undefined if msg is not in the range of x.rec[0]...x.rec[RECLEN]
Indeed for the segmented data address space. But in most systems it's linear,
and the warning is then architecture dependent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100290
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100290
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b81834eaf85d5c4e0df8e4fc2307cbdd083dea6c
commit r10-9789-gb81834eaf85d5c4e0df8e4fc2307cbdd083dea6c
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100401
--- Comment #2 from lavr at ncbi dot nlm.nih.gov ---
> GCC warnings are designed to "report constructions that are not inherently
> erroneous but that are risky or suggest there may have been an error."
Certainly, but the [0] size trailing memb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100384
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100384
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Possibly, but it needs to be constrained for p2162 anyway, which I'm doing via
the return type.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100404
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm pretty sure what the docs mean is that the compiler will not optimise the
caller to assume that anything passed to the function is non-null. Inside the
function it will still assume the parameter is ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Vineet Gupta from comment #15)
> The problem is is indeed gone. I need to analyze the assembly fully how it
> prevents the bad case. e.g. I'm still not comfortable seeing the loop
> entered wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100401
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.1.0
Summary|Bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100362
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100362
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a32b7d03210f1763a5ccd017181ad88bd95b07d1
commit r11-8344-ga32b7d03210f1763a5ccd017181ad88bd95b07d1
Author: Patrick Palka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100404
Bug ID: 100404
Summary: Unable to disable removal of null pointer checks for
nonnull function arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100403
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note, the following condition in the if statement
if (x.rec <= msg && msg < x.rec + sizeof(x))
Is undefined if msg is not in the range of x.rec[0]...x.rec[RECLEN] .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86355
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100403
Bug ID: 100403
Summary: Bogus "function may return address of local variable"
warning
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100391
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
--- Comment #15 from Vineet Gupta ---
(In reply to Linus Torvalds from comment #14)
> (In reply to Vineet Gupta from comment #13)
> > Sorry the workaround proposed by Alexander doesn't seem to cure it (patch
> > attached), outcome is the same
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100372
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100396
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to vopl from comment #2)
> Please, try this, also failed
>
> /0/1/2/3/4/5/6///
> //7
> template struct Checker
> {
> using Some = de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100366
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
--- Comment #14 from Linus Torvalds ---
(In reply to Vineet Gupta from comment #13)
> Sorry the workaround proposed by Alexander doesn't seem to cure it (patch
> attached), outcome is the same
Vineet - it's not the ldd/std that is necessarily b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100402
--- Comment #3 from Hannes Domani ---
Created attachment 50745
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50745&action=edit
output of -fdump-tree-optimized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100402
--- Comment #2 from Hannes Domani ---
Created attachment 50744
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50744&action=edit
assembly (-S)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100402
--- Comment #1 from Hannes Domani ---
Created attachment 50743
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50743&action=edit
preprocessed code (-E)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100402
Bug ID: 100402
Summary: Crash in longjmp
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100362
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2a6fc19e655e696bf0df9b7aaedf9848b23f07f3
commit r12-392-g2a6fc19e655e696bf0df9b7aaedf9848b23f07f3
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eef4fa6968ae0682679c27dae06409db3d113d5d
commit r12-391-geef4fa6968ae0682679c27dae06409db3d113d5d
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68942
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eef4fa6968ae0682679c27dae06409db3d113d5d
commit r12-391-geef4fa6968ae0682679c27dae06409db3d113d5d
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
--- Comment #13 from Vineet Gupta ---
Sorry the workaround proposed by Alexander doesn't seem to cure it (patch
attached), outcome is the same
mov lp_count,r13;5 #, bnd.65
lp @.L201 ; lp_count:@.L50->@.L201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
--- Comment #12 from Vineet Gupta ---
Created attachment 50742
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50742&action=edit
kernel patch as proposed on comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94589
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50719|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100401
Bug ID: 100401
Summary: Bogus -Wformat-overflow warning
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100400
Bug ID: 100400
Summary: ICE in visit_loops_in_gang_single_region
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100055
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100370
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||100399
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100055
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c9b6890d0b6aa030b307fdb620f8c53ed59ca3b5
commit r12-389-gc9b6890d0b6aa030b307fdb620f8c53ed59ca3b5
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100399
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100399
Bug ID: 100399
Summary: bogus/missing -Wplacement-new
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334
Thomas Rodgers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50728|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100398
Bug ID: 100398
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in
gimple_redirect_edge_and_branch, at tree-cfg.c:6082
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 100395, which changed state.
Bug 100395 Summary: Bogus -Wstringop-overflow warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100395
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100395
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||88443
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
--- Comment #11 from Linus Torvalds ---
(In reply to Linus Torvalds from comment #10)
>
> This particular code comes
> from some old version of zlib, and I can't test because I don't have the ARC
> background to make any sense of the gene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100396
--- Comment #2 from vopl at bk dot ru ---
Please, try this, also failed
/0/1/2/3/4/5/6/7
template struct Checker
{
using Some = decltype(F{}(Args{}...));
};
template concept va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
--- Comment #10 from Linus Torvalds ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
>
> Note alignment has nothing to do with strict-aliasing (-fno-strict-aliasing
> you mean btw).
I obviously meant -fno-strict-aliasing, yes.
But I think it'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100362
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
If we remove the unneeded 'this' capture, then it's a rejects-valid bug:
template
struct Qux {
struct A { } a_;
void AsyncOp() {
[](auto) {
struct Grault : decltype(a_) {};
Grault ptr;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100397
Bug ID: 100397
Summary: New test case libgomp.fortran/depobj-1.f90 fails
erratically since its introduction in r12-20
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100374
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100368
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100396
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93031
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov ---
In comment #2 I touched upon a potentially more practical way to offer
-fno-strict-alignment:
Run early work with ABI alignments: compute __alignof correctly, lay out
composite types as required by ABI,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100384
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100396
Bug ID: 100396
Summary: [11.1 regression] The template function overload is
not selected correctly
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100362
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394
--- Comment #4 from Michael Matz ---
That then still shows problems with the pure function and -O2, but with
standard
C++ this then works:
struct S {
int foo(int i) const { if (i) throw 42; return 0; }
};
int __attribute__((noinline)) bar2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100367
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Internal compiler error |[11/12 Regression] Internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100395
Bug ID: 100395
Summary: Bogus -Wstringop-overflow warning
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93644
Jochen Roemmler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jochen447 at concept dot de
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|3.4.6, 4.3.5|
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100375
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I need to fix libstdc++ to accept the code with a deprecated warning, rather
than reject it. I think it only rejects it with -pedantic but it should still
be fixed to work until the deprecated constructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Classically it needs two DCE passes, the first removes the call LHS, the second
then no longer considers the call necessary because of EH. But even with that
fixed there are subsequent passes breaking thin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
See also https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/569429.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394
Bug ID: 100394
Summary: wrong-code with EH and pure/const functions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: midd
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo