https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119897
Bug ID: 119897
Summary: Conversion to any integer type succeeds, when should
be ambiguous
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119866
--- Comment #9 from Barry Revzin ---
> I think it was never intentionally supported in constexpr (it just happened
> to work) and so such code was never correct.
Can it just be made to work in constexpr? Is there a reason not to? It already
mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119866
--- Comment #3 from Barry Revzin ---
Well even gcc 4.7.1 accepted this
int main() {
static_assert(__builtin_strlen("hi") == 2, "!");
}
At this point lots of code relies on that working.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119866
Bug ID: 119866
Summary: constant evaluation failure with trivial function
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119747
--- Comment #1 from Barry Revzin ---
Clang's diagnostic is equivalent to gcc's for this example:
:9:5: error: expected expression
9 | CALL_F(1, 2);
| ^
:6:40: note: expanded from macro 'CALL_F'
6 | #define CALL_F(v, ...) f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119747
Bug ID: 119747
Summary: Request for clearer diagnostic when consecutive commas
appear in a function call
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117849
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118736
Bug ID: 118736
Summary: Requesting a diagnostic on infinite recursion with
polymorphic, defaulted operator==
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118568
Bug ID: 118568
Summary: Diagnosing more dangling references
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118323
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118249
--- Comment #1 from Barry Revzin ---
Pretend the example had declared outer as
extern array<10>& outer;
Since otherwise the usage has nothing to do with P2280. gcc does correctly
allow that case too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118249
Bug ID: 118249
Summary: Misdiagnosing use of 'this' while doing class member
access in constant evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106631
--- Comment #1 from Barry Revzin ---
I tried to open this bug report again today (although this time I ran into it
due to a missing #include for the primary definition, rather than typoing the
name).
Still took me a while to parse the error me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117509
--- Comment #2 from Barry Revzin ---
The warning is correct! I don't want to suppress the warning from the function
that gives it to me, I want to get a warning out of the function that doesn't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117509
Bug ID: 117509
Summary: False negative on -Wdangling-reference
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117294
Bug ID: 117294
Summary: Concept swallow diagnostics when they're defined in
terms of type traits
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117004
Bug ID: 117004
Summary: Unexpected const variable type with decltype of
non-type template parameter of deduced type
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116896
Bug ID: 116896
Summary: codegen for <=> compared to hand-written equivalent
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116696
--- Comment #5 from Barry Revzin ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116696
Bug ID: 116696
Summary: function template not considered constexpr even with
-fimplicit-constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115163
Bug ID: 115163
Summary: Requesting better diagnostic for explicit constructor
failure
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112490
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114589
Bug ID: 114589
Summary: missed optimization: losing bool range information
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114135
Bug ID: 114135
Summary: Diagnostic missing useful information for ranges code
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104255
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114124
Bug ID: 114124
Summary: Rejected use of function parameter as non-type
template parameter in trailing-return-type
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49974
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113008
Bug ID: 113008
Summary: Trivially default constructible requires default
member initializer before the end of its enclosing
class
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112591
--- Comment #1 from Barry Revzin ---
Basically, in C++17, Sub looks like this:
struct Sub17 : Empty {
aligned_membuf storage;
unsigned char index;
};
But in C++20 it turns into:
struct Sub20 : Empty {
union { Empty storage; };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112591
Bug ID: 112591
Summary: variant allows for creating multiple empty objects at
same address
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112296
Bug ID: 112296
Summary: __builtin_constant_p doesn't propagate through member
functions
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111854
--- Comment #4 from Barry Revzin ---
The standard says this should be ill-formed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111854
Bug ID: 111854
Summary: new align_val_t usual deallocation
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111538
Bug ID: 111538
Summary: Unhelpful message when returning initializer list when
deducing the return type
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111485
Bug ID: 111485
Summary: Constraint mismatch on template template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111299
Bug ID: 111299
Summary: lack of warning on dangling reference to temporary
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58
Bug ID: 58
Summary: diagnostics, colors, and std::same_as
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102609
--- Comment #14 from Barry Revzin ---
> I am finding myself realizing that implementing this as a member function and
> turning off member function bits seems to be more difficult than implementing
> it as a static function and implementing me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110806
Bug ID: 110806
Summary: Suggest this-> for dependent base classes in more
contexts
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110793
Bug ID: 110793
Summary: regression in optimizing unused string
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109642
--- Comment #10 from Barry Revzin ---
Check out the report I opened for an example where the #pragma around the whole
class isn't really enough anyway - since you might want to disable the warning
for specializations of class/function templates.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110358
Bug ID: 110358
Summary: requesting nicer suppression for Wdangling-reference
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110231
Bug ID: 110231
Summary: unhelpful diagnostic when constructing through
initializer_list
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110064
Bug ID: 110064
Summary: spurious missing initializer for member for anonymous
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109890
Bug ID: 109890
Summary: vector's constructor doesn't start object lifetimes
during constant evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109876
Bug ID: 109876
Summary: initializer_list not usable in constant expressions in
a template
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109715
Bug ID: 109715
Summary: abi_tag attribute is not applied to variable templates
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109515
Bug ID: 109515
Summary: Diagnostic request: warning on out-of-order structured
bindings names
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109474
--- Comment #2 from Barry Revzin ---
Serves me right for only checking vector (which worked) and vector
(which didn't) and not bothering to check vector const (which also doesn't
work) and thus overly complicating the bug report.
I got too exci
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109474
Bug ID: 109474
Summary: chunk_by doesn't work for ranges of proxy references
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88061
--- Comment #6 from Barry Revzin ---
Any action on this one?
A workaround right now is to change code that would ideally look like (which is
pretty clean in my opinion):
template
void foo() {
[[gnu::section(".meow")]] static int value = 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109396
Bug ID: 109396
Summary: Winit-self doesn't warn when std::move()-d
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109362
--- Comment #4 from Barry Revzin ---
Awesome!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109362
--- Comment #1 from Barry Revzin ---
Sorry, in this reduced example, it doesn't actually consume an extra register -
only rdi is used.
In this slightly less reduced example:
#include
struct S {
std::atomic size;
std::atomic read_ptr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109362
Bug ID: 109362
Summary: codegen adds unnecessary extra add when reading atomic
member
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109268
Bug ID: 109268
Summary: Guard variable still provided for static constinit
variable
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109222
Bug ID: 109222
Summary: Confusing error for declaring an enum class with
unknown type
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108953
Bug ID: 108953
Summary: inefficient codegen for trivial equality
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108823
Bug ID: 108823
Summary: ranges::transform could be smarter with two sized
ranges
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108744
--- Comment #3 from Barry Revzin ---
Yeah, they're banned in non-static data members also. But there, we just can't
have any "auto" non-static data members, whereas you can have "auto" static
data members (just not structured bindings).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108744
Bug ID: 108744
Summary: error message when trying to use structured bindings
in static member declaration could be cleaner
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105200
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106667
Bug ID: 106667
Summary: Diagnosing misuses of capturing lambda coroutines
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106631
Bug ID: 106631
Summary: Unhelpful diagnostic on variable template
specialization with unknown name
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106596
Bug ID: 106596
Summary: Not a helpful diagnostic when putting things out of
order in a member function
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106371
Bug ID: 106371
Summary: Bogus narrowing conversion reported due to bitfield
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106354
Bug ID: 106354
Summary: Diagnostic could be more user friendly
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106176
Bug ID: 106176
Summary: Compiler diagnostic doesn't show where it's coming
from in my code
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106151
--- Comment #2 from Barry Revzin ---
I guess that's like:
C++11/14: neither is an aggregate (base class).
C++17: both are aggregates.
C++20: Bar is an aggregate, but Foo is not (user-declared constructor).
But that really shouldn't affect the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106151
Bug ID: 106151
Summary: Inconsistent optimization when defaulting aggregate vs
non-aggregate
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105903
Bug ID: 105903
Summary: Missed optimization for __synth3way
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105840
--- Comment #2 from Barry Revzin ---
I think something to this effect maybe?
:9:7: error: attempting to declare constructor for unrelated class 'A';
did you mean to use 'B'?
9 | A(int i);
| ^~
| B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105840
Bug ID: 105840
Summary: confusing diagnostic when naming the wrong class in a
constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53281
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105672
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102774
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105268
Bug ID: 105268
Summary: type/value mismatch when using variadic concept
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105195
Bug ID: 105195
Summary: spurious warning label defined but not used with if
constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92396
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105059
Bug ID: 105059
Summary: Inconsistency between paren- and brace-initialization
of a union with anonymous struct
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95153
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104858
Bug ID: 104858
Summary: ranges::minmax double dereferences first
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88061
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104803
--- Comment #6 from Barry Revzin ---
Ugh, sorry. You guys are right. gcc is correct to reject the example. Bad bug
report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104803
--- Comment #4 from Barry Revzin ---
For instance, clang accepts this version:
consteval int p(int i) {
return i > 2;
}
constexpr auto none_of(int const* f, int const* l) -> bool {
for (; f != l; ++f) {
int i = *f;
if c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104803
--- Comment #3 from Barry Revzin ---
clang is also wrong. p(i) doesn't have to be a constant expression there. The
rule (http://eel.is/c++draft/expr.const#13) is "An immediate invocation shall
be a constant expression." but an expression is only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104803
Bug ID: 104803
Summary: if consteval error from branch that isn't evaluated
anyway
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71283
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68350
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103919
Bug ID: 103919
Summary: The basic_string(const T&, size_type, size_type)
constructor is overconstrained
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103783
Bug ID: 103783
Summary: Ambiguous overload between constrained static member
and unconstrained non-static member
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103712
Bug ID: 103712
Summary: variable is not a constant expression because it is
used in its own initializer
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103663
Bug ID: 103663
Summary: Diagnostic is missing multiple instantiation frames to
help point to where the problem happens
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100795
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101263
--- Comment #6 from Barry Revzin ---
The "real" answer is allowing constexpr placement new, but that obviously
doesn't help you right now.
But I think the helpful answer is that you can add a constructor to your
storage like storage(init_from_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95384
--- Comment #4 from Barry Revzin ---
Here's another example of the same kind of issue
(https://godbolt.org/z/KWr9rMssj):
template
struct tagged_union {
tagged_union(T t) : index(0), a(t) { }
tagged_union(U u) : index(1), b(u) { }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102644
Bug ID: 102644
Summary: deduction failure when having default non-type
template parameters that are lambdas
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102529
Bug ID: 102529
Summary: ctad for aliases fails in the presence of constraints
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102289
Bug ID: 102289
Summary: Concept declaration with multiple template-heads not
diagnosed
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
