https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121904
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=121916
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114457
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 62368
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62368&action=edit
gcc16-pr114457-wip.patch
Untested WIP progress, which compared to the last gcc-patches posted one can
now
hand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121904
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121894
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> So
>
> s = .DEFERRED_INIT (16, 1, &"s"[0]);
> _1 = s.b;
>
> is OK to "CSE" to
>
> _1 = .DEFERRED_INIT (4, 1, );
I think so and SRA is clearly doing th
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Consider
struct S { int a, b, c, d; };
void bar (int, int, int, int);
void
foo ()
{
S s;
s.a = 1;
s.c = 2;
s.d = 3;
s.a++;
s.c++;
s.d++;
bar (s.a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121894
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > __builtin_memset (&s, 0, 32);
> >into
> > __builtin_memset (&MEM [(void *)&s + 8B], 0, 20);
>
> I suspect if we change the memset to be
> MEM [(void *)&s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121784
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Heinrich Schuchardt from comment #9)
> Thanks Jakub for you detailed explanation that should help to improve the
> Skia code.
>
> As some of the tail functions modify the passed parameters (ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121828
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Should be fixed for GCC 16+ so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121831
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15/16 regression] ICE when |[15 regression] ICE when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121784
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
To explain better what is happening under the hood,
using StageFn = void (*)(StageList list, int src, int dst, F r, F g, F b);
void m(StageList list, int src, int dst, F r, F g, F b) {
return (*list.fn)(li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121784
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The RISCV ABIs apparently pass some of the vector arguments by invisible
reference (dunno if it is only if there are no vector registers reserved for
argument passing left or if it depends solely on the exac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121828
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 121678, which changed state.
Bug 121678 Summary: &__real__ static_var not constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121678
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121678
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 62350
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62350&action=edit
gcc16-pr121831.patch
Full untested patch for the missing RAW_DATA_CST support part.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121873
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> It fails with -m32 -std=c23 without -mfpmath=sse -msse2, but it should fail
> in that case, for -fexcess-precision=standard (implied by -std=c??) on
> targets wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121873
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121831
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Untested fix for the ICE:
--- gcc/expr.cc.jj 2025-08-05 12:57:06.719031397 +0200
+++ gcc/expr.cc 2025-09-08 18:53:23.453223679 +0200
@@ -6533,6 +6533,31 @@ string_cst_read_str (void *data, void *,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121831
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, I think the decision to punt should be based on the number of non-zero
elements or bytes. Even with gigabytes long CONSTRUCTOR if it contains say
just 64 bytes of non-zeros it will be beneficial to e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121831
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
store_constructor simply doesn't have RAW_DATA_CST support, that can be added.
What worries me more is that expand_constructor doesn't have some upper size
bound on the optimization. We punt if we can't c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121827
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Untested fix:
2025-09-06 Jakub Jelinek
PR libstdc++/121827
* include/precompiled/extc++.h: Don't include ext/cast.h which is an
internal header.
* include/ext/pointer.h: I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121811
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
NCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 62329
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62329&acti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121732
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121655
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
template void foo ();
struct A { char a; };
#ifndef SB
char &bar ();
char &x = bar ();
#else
A &bar ();
auto &[x] = bar ();
#endif
void
baz ()
{
foo ();
}
shows that without structured binding we rej
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For
template void f();
struct test_t { char a; } t;
test_t& dummy_object = t;
auto& [v0] = dummy_object;
void g()
{
f();
}
g++ disagrees with cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106658
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-August/693665.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120775
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 62293
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62293&action=edit
gcc16-p3394r4-wip.patch
Untested partial implementation of P3394R4, in particular the one which doesn't
depend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121760
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121675
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The first weird thing is the cse_local pass.
Before that it seems we compute twice
11 / -2 + 4 + (11 / -2 + 4U <= 2U ? 11 / -2 + 3 : 0)
which is that in GIMPLE simplified (1 / c + (g - 1)) with f = -2 propag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121675
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121732
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121698
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121663
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=121663
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121698
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #62241|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121698
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #62239|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121698
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=121719
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121718
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121575
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121520
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119367
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Untested fix:
2025-08-27 Jakub Jelinek
PR debug/119367
* dwarf2out.cc (output_one_line_info_table) : If
HAVE_AS_LEB128, use DW_LNS_advance_pc with dw2_asm_output_delta_uleb128
|1
Last reconfirmed||2025-08-26
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 62203
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62203&acti
t: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
static constexpr _Complex double a = 1.0;
static constexpr double *r = &__real__ a;
static constexpr double *i = &__imag__ a;
is rejected in C++ and
static const _Complex do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121670
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121520
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 62201
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62201&action=edit
gcc16-pr121520-2.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121672
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #3)
> In the meeting notes for Bordeaux, I see some longer discussions notes about
> Ticket 720 (afternoon of May 18, 2018 = last session). Thus, it was clearly
> disc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121672
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Must not have been Austin, because I was there in person. Perhaps Munich F2F?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98734
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, always_inline is not a guarantee out of line copy will not be emitted.
Either because address of the always_inline function is taken and not optimized
in all places into a direct call, or when using -fk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121658
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121658
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 62193
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62193&action=edit
gcc16-pr121658.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121658
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=121601
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
|1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2025-08-25
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 62188
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62188&acti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121649
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|[16 Regression] wrong code |[16 Regression] wrong code
|at -O2 with large number of |with _BitInt() conversions
|arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121374
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Dunno where I got 112 from, maybe just a typo.
112 is the number of explicit mantissa bits, like double has 52. But we need
to include the implicit mantissa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10837
--- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Lukas Grätz from comment #33)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #32)
> > gnu::musttail instead of musttail.
>
> Still doesn't work, but I guess it is the same problem as in PR 121642.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10837
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121647
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is not valid C++26.
https://eel.is/c++draft/stmt.expand#2
says that expansion stmt body is control-flow-limited, and
https://eel.is/c++draft/stmt.label#3
explains that.
Note, expansion stmt body can't c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121583
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121575
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=121594
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, constexpr there works in the enumerating/iterating cases and for
destructuring if not using std::tuple_size, i.e. when iterating over class
non-static members.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121594
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121601
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
@@ -2694,6 +2694,8 @@ cxx_bind_parameters_in_call (const constexpr_ctx *ctx,
tree t, tree fun,
arg = cxx_eval_constant_expression (ctx, x, vc_prval
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121601
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=121552
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 121552, which changed state.
Bug 121552 Summary: [C++20] Implement C++20 P1766R1 - Mitigating minor modules
maladies
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121552
What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121520
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121539
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14/15/16 Regression] C |[13/14/15 Regression] C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110338
Bug 110338 depends on bug 120778, which changed state.
Bug 120778 Summary: [C++26] P2843R3 - Preprocessing is never undefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120778
What|Removed |Added
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Now implemented for GCC 16.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121563
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121524
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15/16 Regression] Trailing |[15 Regression] Trailing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121553
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121553
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121553
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Given still unresolved https://wg21.link/cwg2838 I think this should be
SUSPENDED until CWG decides, and dolphin should be fixed in the meantime not to
do that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121552
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 62122
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62122&action=edit
gcc16-pr121552.patch
Untested implementation.
dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Blocks||88323
Last reconfirmed||2025-08-14
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
clang++ has -Wnon-c-typedef-for-linkage
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
See <https://wg21.link/P1766R1>.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121539
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121520
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110338
Bug 110338 depends on bug 120776, which changed state.
Bug 120776 Summary: [C++26] P1306R5 - Expansion statements
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120776
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120776
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 62113
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62113&action=edit
gcc16-pr121524.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121524
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Summary|[15/16 Regression]
|NEW
Priority|P3 |P2
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
||pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|[14/15/16 Regression] wrong |[14/15/16 Regression] wrong
,
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Priority|P3 |P1
Summary|[16 Regression] ICE on |[16 Regression] ICE on
|valid code at -O3 on|valid code at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121526
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121525
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2025-08-13
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 62108
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62108&acti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117784
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cooky.ykooc922 at gmail dot com
--- Com
||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html#cxx26 clearly states that the
whole paper has not been implemented yet, only the smaller part of it which
allows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121520
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121514
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-08-11
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121514
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121514
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
1 - 100 of 15061 matches
Mail list logo
