https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102944
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
> I'm seeing it on 64-bit sparc, and there are also reports for
> s390x-ibm-linux-gnu and m68k-unknown-linux-gnu. It may be a
> coincidance, but those are all big-endian targets.
There seems to be a miss opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103076
Bug ID: 103076
Summary: slp vectorizer failed to try smaller lenth.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103075
Bug ID: 103075
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in
exact_int_to_float_conversion_p, at simplify-rtx.c:905
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103074
Bug ID: 103074
Summary: [11/12 Regression] ICE in lra_assign, at
lra-assigns.c:1649
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103073
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>I'm not sure about the component.
It is the correct one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103073
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
c-linux-gnu/12.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /testing/gcc/gcc_src_master/configure --enable-multilib
--prefix=/testing/gcc/bin_master --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20211103 (62af7d9402f551fa708125fafed2950d8912b25e) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103071
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85614
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Le ---
Created attachment 51733
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51733&action=edit
List -fdump-tree pass options that are no longer discoverable
Here's the code again without any formatting issues t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85614
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Le ---
(In reply to Daniel Le from comment #1)
> $ for i in $(!!); do \
> > if g++ -fdump-"$i" -S -o /dev/null a.cpp; then \
> > echo "$i: works."; \
> > else \
> > echo "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103072
Bug ID: 103072
Summary: Folding common switch code
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85614
Daniel Le Duc Khoi Nguyen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||greenrecyclebin at gmail dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, from a very quick test, it does exactly what I want.
As discussed on IRC, we might not want to do this folding at -O0 (although I'd
personally be happy with it unconditionally).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103071
Bug ID: 103071
Summary: Missed optimization for symmetric subset: (a & b) == a
|| (a & b) == b
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103070
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
(c33a5cc9e7f1475108892abb147f9382ecbaec12) and 20211103
(600dcd74b8e614c996b492d97878660faf484094),
gnat.dg/lto21.adb started to FAIL:
+FAIL: gnat.dg/lto21.adb (internal compiler error)
+FAIL: gnat.dg/lto21.adb (test for excess errors)
Seen on Solaris 11/SPARC and x86 (32 and 64-bit).
during
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka ---
Created attachment 51732
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51732&action=edit
rough patch that folds calls to std::move/forward
Does the attached rough patch help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069
--- Comment #1 from Thiago Macieira ---
(the assembly doesn't match the source code, but we got your point)
Another possible improvement for the __atomic_fetch_{and,nand,or} functions is
that it can check whether the fetched value is already co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35276
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |sandra at gcc dot
gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52274
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
*** Bug 52279 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52279
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52274
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on|52279 |38573, 52232, 52234, 52245,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35276
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103067
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70796
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
cp_gimplify_expr uses for CALL_EXPR_REVERSE_ARGS and CALL_EXPR_ORDERED_ARGS
(and for !CALL_EXPR_OPERATOR_SYNTAX method calls) gimplify_arg, but that
clearly isn't enough once there are any TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101906
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069
Bug ID: 103069
Summary: cmpxchg isn't optimized
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491
Bug 67491 depends on bug 82110, which changed state.
Bug 82110 Summary: Concept for default constructing works with new T, not with
new T[1]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82110
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82110
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102479
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kimhappy at hanyang dot ac.kr
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98475
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
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=101219
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
CC|
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=100102
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||henrik.nortamo at csc dot fi
--- Commen
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=100739
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
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=103067
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #2 from Jonath
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
--- 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=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=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=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=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=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=103062
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
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=103063
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
Summary|Wrong code while
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
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org,
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=103064
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
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
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=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:
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=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=103056
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
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=103063
Bug ID: 103063
Summary: Wrong code while using -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
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=102670
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Ass
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=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=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=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=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=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 #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 #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=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
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Blocks|
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=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=102970
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] |[11 Regression] stable_sort
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=102986
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
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=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=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=70796
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
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=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=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=103033
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
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=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=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=70792
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks!
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=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=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=65866
Matthijs van Duin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthijsvanduin at gmail dot
com
--
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=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)
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=103051
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confi
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=103052
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo