According to http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html here is what is requested for
a bug report.
Regards,
Miguel Luis.
## the exact version of GCC;
$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 (Ubuntu 4.1.2-0ubuntu4)
Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying con
--- Comment #7 from cgf at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 13:04 ---
reverting spamassassin
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31858
--- Comment #8 from cgf at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 13:06 ---
I reverted spamassassin to v3.1.8.
Comments on the net seemed to indicate that 3.2.0 was slower anyway and it
certainly doesn't seem ready for prime time yet.
--
cgf at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
With -O1, the following testcase
int
foo (void)
{
return ({
unsigned int resultvar = ({
long int arg = (long int) 0;
register long int reg asm ("eax") = arg;
asm volatile ("nop"
: "=a" (resultvar)
: "0" (reg)
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 13:45 ---
Subject: Bug 31692
Author: pault
Date: Tue May 8 12:45:31 2007
New Revision: 124546
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=124546
Log:
2007-05-08 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 13:49 ---
Fixed on trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 13:51 ---
I'll submit a fix tonight.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 13:51 ---
I'll submit a fix tonight.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 13:52 ---
Oops!
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at acm dot org 2007-05-08 14:10 ---
Subject: Re: New: Loop IM and other optimizations harmful for -fopenmp
On 8 May 2007 07:59:03 -, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See http://openmp.org/pipermail/omp/2007/000840.html
> and the
--- Comment #12 from angray at beeb dot net 2007-05-08 15:07 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> MSC includes the calling convention as part of its C++ name mangling. Would
> this bug be easier to solve if the calling convention was also included as
> part
> of the C++ name mangling in GCC
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 15:30 ---
WTF, this is just sad we have to disable optimizations because openmp folks
don't know how to program threaded code.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31862
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #13 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-05-08 15:34 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> The summary says "g++ misses warning for & on temporary". But something that
> is
> always an error can be called a warning?
The point is that the standard doesn't call it an error, but und
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 15:35 ---
EDG accepts this.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keyword
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 15:36 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 31793 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 15:36 ---
*** Bug 31865 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 15:37 ---
OMP is not a good generic programming model for threaded code. Exactly because
of this issues.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31862
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at acm dot org 2007-05-08 15:39 ---
Subject: Re: Loop IM and other optimizations harmful for -fopenmp
On 8 May 2007 14:30:45 -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 15:41 ---
Subject: Bug 31630
Author: pault
Date: Tue May 8 14:40:58 2007
New Revision: 124550
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=124550
Log:
2007-05-08 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at acm dot org 2007-05-08 15:44 ---
Subject: Re: Loop IM and other optimizations harmful for -fopenmp
On 8 May 2007 14:37:05 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OMP is not a good generic programming model for threaded code.
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 15:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=13530)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13530&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31863
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 15:47 ---
This is related to PR29433, but still unresolved.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 15:52 ---
Until I killed cc1plus we have (mainline):
samples %symbol name
5011528.3000 push_fields_onto_fieldstack
12370 6.9853 bitpos_of_field
10174 5.7453 tree_low_cst
8825 4.9835 host_integerp
On 8 May 2007 14:44:16 -, dnovillo at acm dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The original code did not have a race condition. The compiler
transformations introduced a race-condition. This *is* a compiler
bug.
Actually the original code has a race condition, if another thread is
reading
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2007-05-08 15:59 ---
Subject: Re: Loop IM and other optimizations harmful for -fopenmp
On 8 May 2007 14:44:16 -, dnovillo at acm dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The original code did not have a race condition. The compiler
> transf
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 16:01 ---
cc1plus: out of memory allocating 1764584 bytes after a total of 16482304
bytes
so this actually killed even the 16GB box.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31863
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 16:03 ---
Danny, push_fields_onto_fieldstack is going crazy on this.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #37 from james dot kanze at gmail dot com 2007-05-08 16:11
---
Subject: Re: Lack of Posix compliant thread safety in std::basic_string
On 7 May 2007 21:08:05 -, gianni at mariani dot ws
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Comment #35 from gianni at mariani dot ws 20
--- Comment #38 from james dot kanze at gmail dot com 2007-05-08 16:21
---
Subject: Re: Lack of Posix compliant thread safety in std::basic_string
On 8 May 2007 05:24:35 -, gianni at mariani dot ws
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Comment #36 from gianni at mariani dot ws 20
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 16:21 ---
Note the interesting debuggable testcase is if you remove from getInstance()
all
template params from ClassSpec on. Around that one you'll
clearly
see exponential behavior in memory use ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
The program
module util_mod
implicit none
contains
function join(words,sep) result(str)
! trim and concatenate a vector of character variables,
! inserting sep between them
character (len=*), intent(in):: words(:),sep
character (len=(size(words)-1)*len(sep) + sum(len_trim(words))) :: str
--- Comment #3 from simartin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 16:34
---
Subject: Bug 31847
Author: simartin
Date: Tue May 8 15:33:56 2007
New Revision: 124551
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=124551
Log:
2007-05-08 Simon Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #4 from simartin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 16:47
---
This should be fixed (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg00527.html for an explanation of
the patch).
--
simartin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #14 from raf2 at msux dot cjb dot net 2007-05-08 17:18 ---
I first was hit by an error using MinGW... when I compiled and executed the
first attached file, it wrote:
John drives a: "bus"
Otto drives a: "bus"
Which was wrong, I reported the bug and a guy from
--- Comment #15 from raf2 at msux dot cjb dot net 2007-05-08 17:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=13531)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13531&action=view)
File with wrong code that leads to an unexpected result
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=986
--- Comment #16 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-05-08 17:25 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Which was wrong, I reported the bug and a guy from MinGW kindly explained that
> if it worked then that would be purely by accident and added:
> " When you declare the argument without '&' th
X86-64 crtend.o with DWARF EH is broken when compiled with
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables, which is the default:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-11/msg00799.html
It was fixed for Linux only:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-11/msg01671.html
That leaves all non-Linux x86-64 with DWARF EH have
--- Comment #1 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-05-08 18:12 ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg00557.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31868
--- Comment #5 from ismail at pardus dot org dot tr 2007-05-08 18:48
---
I had to apply http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&revision=122255 to the 4.2.0
branch to be able to bootstrap, else I get :
from gcc-4.2.0-20070430/libstdc++-v3/include/precompiled/stdc++.h:71:
gcc-4.2.0-20070430
--- Comment #2 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-05-08 18:55 ---
Patches against 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 are at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg00563.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31868
--- Comment #6 from ismail at pardus dot org dot tr 2007-05-08 19:02
---
Never mind my last comment, it was a local patch causing the problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31793
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 19:08 ---
This really is not specific to OpenMP, I believe the following is valid
threaded program:
#define _XOPEN_SOURCE 600
#include
#include
int v;
pthread_mutex_t m = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
pthread_barrier_t b;
void
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2007-05-08 19:45 ---
Subject: Re: Loop IM and other optimizations harmful for -fopenmp
On 8 May 2007 18:08:26 -, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot de
|dot org |
--- Comment #39 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-05-08 19:50 ---
The proper status of this PR is SUSPENDED. Today, mid of 2007, we all more or
less concur that is better implemented without reference-counting,
optimized for short strings, and, of course, exploiting rvalue references.
I
--- Comment #13 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-05-08 20:11 ---
Subject: Re: Compile errors with multiple inheritance where
the stdcall attribute is applied to virtual functions.
rridge at csclub dot uwaterloo dot ca wrote:
> --- Comment #11 from rridge at csclub dot uwater
#include
#define MKSTR(x) STR(x)
#define STR(x) #x
#define EMPTY /* nothing */
int main(void) {
puts(MKSTR(.EMPTY.));
puts(MKSTR(.EMPTY .));
}
Using gcc 4.1.2, configured with
../gcc-4.1.2/configure --prefix=$HOME/gcc --enable-languages=c,c++
--disable-multilib, on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu,
--- Comment #7 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2007-05-08 20:44
---
Still accepts-invalid as of 4.2-20070430 (RC2).
--
fang at csl dot cornell dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #9 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2007-05-08 20:48
---
Still accepts-invalid with 4.2-20070430 (RC2).
--
fang at csl dot cornell dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from dorit at il dot ibm dot com 2007-05-08 21:00 ---
Here is what happens in the three loops that don't get vectorized:
(1) the loop in testvectdp2:
This is the loop we analyze:
# prephitmp.192_37 = PHI
# i_1 = PHI <1(3), i_44(5)>
:;
D.1437_32 = prephitmp.192_37
--- Comment #2 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2007-05-08 21:18 ---
I am seeing this slow compile too. It compiles OK on HPPA in 32 bit mode (1.5
minutes) but takes over 30 minutes in 64 bit mode. It also takes 6+ minutes on
IA64 HP-UX. On an X86 box it took less than 1 minute.
Using
--- Comment #7 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 21:19 ---
Subject: Re: -ftree-vectorize results in internal compiler error on AMD64
On 5/8/07, Sjodin, Jan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Okay, I looked at the code, and the problem is that we have to pass to
> > force_gimple_o
--- Comment #8 from Jan dot Sjodin at amd dot com 2007-05-08 21:30 ---
Subject: RE: -ftree-vectorize results in
internal compiler error on AMD64
I would prefer to make it work instead of disabling the vectorizer for
these cases.
- Jan
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROT
--- Comment #3 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2007-05-08 21:55 ---
I now think the loc_mentioned_in_p calls are coming from the checking code at
the top of subst_reload. I commented out this checking code and my compile
speed up by more than 10X.
--
sje at cup dot hp dot com changed
--- Comment #14 from angray at beeb dot net 2007-05-08 22:02 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Subject: Re: Compile errors with multiple inheritance where
> the stdcall attribute is applied to virtual functions.
> rridge at csclub dot uwaterloo dot ca wrote:
> > --- Comment #11 from
--- Comment #35 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 22:05
---
Ian Taylor suggests:
The way to fix this is to add a HOST_HOOKS_GT_PCH_GET_ADDRESS to
host-solaris.c. That hook should try to allocate the space in some
address area that is normally free on Solaris. See the us
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 23:08
---
Created an attachment (id=13532)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13532&action=view)
New patch
Here's a new patch from a completely different perspective, using C99 lround
and llround functions
--- Comment #2 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 23:11 ---
It turned out that this is a generic reload issue rather than
a target problem. See
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg00476.html
--
kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 23:15 ---
This patch would fix it, but it's brute-force and it causes a ~1.5% slowdown.
Some form of DCE a little more delicate than this will be necessary to fix this
bug, though.
Index: cfgcleanup.c
===
--- Comment #3 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-08 23:23 ---
Subject: Bug 28011
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue May 8 22:22:49 2007
New Revision: 124557
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=124557
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/28011
* reload.c (push_re
int d (void) { register int a[2]; return a, 1; }
--
Summary: Failure to diagnose taking address of register variable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assigne
Casts to "void *" are not permitted in integer constant expressions.
Therefore this code violates constraint 6.7.5.2p2 of C99 (C90 is u.b.) and so
must be diagnosed.
extern int c[1 + ((int) (void *) 0)];
--
Summary: C99 failure to diagnose non-integer cast
Product: gcc
Compiling 27_io/basic_istream/extractors_arithmetic/char/12.cc with
-g3 -O0, I get the error:
/var/tmp//ccLYgR4g.s: Assembler messages:
/var/tmp//ccLYgR4g.s:424: Error: file number 1 already allocated
This is the full compilation command:
/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/g++ -shared-libgcc -B/test/gnu
--- Comment #1 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 00:52 ---
Oops, this is against 4.3.
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 01:10
---
I will look this over tonight.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31867
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 01:33
---
I get:
words = 'two three'
On x86-64-gnu/linux with latest 4.3
I wonder if this is one that we recently fixed. Can you try with a more recent
build?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31867
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-05-09 01:34 ---
I have a draft...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned a
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 01:45 ---
Here is a shorter testcase:
int
foo (void)
{
unsigned int resultvar;
long int arg = (long int) 0;
register long int reg asm ("eax") = arg;
asm ("nop"
: "=r" (resultvar)
: "0" (reg)
);
return resu
--- Comment #40 from gianni at mariani dot ws 2007-05-09 01:54 ---
Paolo writes:
> ... concur that is better implemented without reference-counting ...
Could I ask you to enumerate the reasons why you come to this conclusion ? I
just want understand better why (royal) we came to this
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pcarlini at suse dot de |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
||do
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21334
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 02:17 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 03:07 ---
Related to PR 29116.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31871
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 03:14 ---
I don't see a problem with this .. are two different tokens (.) so getting rid
of the space is ok here.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31869
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 03:19 ---
> That's why I think we should have a generic option that disables optimizations
> which are safe only in sequential programs (and -fopenmp would imply that
> option).
So it sounds like you don't any thing about thr
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 04:02
---
Apparently the magic limit here is 65535, not 10 as stated previously.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925
--- Comment #2 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 05:01 ---
The space is required by the standard. Is this a regression? I believe GCC
used to get this right but I could be wrong.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31869
This PR was originally opened against PRE (PR25809), but turns out PRE can't
solve this problem, so here's a new PR instead:
In testcases that have reduction, like gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-2char.c and
gcc.dg/vect-reduc-2short.c, the following casts appear:
signed char sdiff;
unsigne
--- Comment #8 from dorit at il dot ibm dot com 2007-05-09 07:14 ---
> So I guess this should be handled somewhere else. I'll open a new
> missed-optimization PR instead (not against PRE this time). thanks.
This is now PR31873
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25809
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 07:27
---
This testcase (gcc.dg/pr30957-1.c) fails on spu-elf because spu-elf's float
almost always treat -0.0 as 0.0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30957
--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 07:30 ---
You are entitled to your opinion.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31862
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 07:30 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
/home/apinski/src/local/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr28900.c: In function
'synths_':^M
/home/apinski/src/local/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr28900.c:5: internal
compiler error: in vect_transform_loop, at tree-vect-transform.c:5263^M
Please submit a full bug report,^M
with preprocessed so
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 07:06 ---
Investigating...
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|u
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 07:33 ---
valgrind shows:
==7067== Syscall param write(buf) points to uninitialised byte(s)
==7067==at 0x5603550: write (in /lib64/libc-2.5.so)
==7067==by 0x4EC1130: do_write (unix.c:336)
==7067==by 0x4EC11D1: fd_
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 07:35 ---
/home/apinski/src/local/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr28900.c:8: note:
-->vectorizing statement: :
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
Use GCJ as web plugin for java.
Go to http://www.runescape.com
Click "Play as an existing user" (No need to create user name)
Click "High Definition"
Click "Free membership"
There was an error before playing the game.
The error is "Error loading applet"
Currently using Fedora Core 6 on a 64-bit
89 matches
Mail list logo
