https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65536
--- Comment #47 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Mar 27 06:58:59 2015
New Revision: 221720
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221720&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/65536
* lto-streamer.h (class lto_location_cache): New.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The testcase contains one loop nest with 3 loops with iteration counts 500, so
the inner loop body is executed 125.000.000 times:
...
#define N 500
int X[2*N], Y[2*N], B[2*N];
int A[2*N][2*N], C[2*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 35158
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35158&action=edit
reduced testcase
markus@x4 tmp % g++ -std=gnu++1y -flto -g -O2 -r -nostdlib tcp_client.ii
lto1: internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65536
--- Comment #48 from Jan Hubicka ---
I run memory statistics with the cache and my patch. I will run stats with
cache w/o the libcpp patch tomorrow. I would like to get this problem solved,
but perhaps we want to only track down the reason for w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65593
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Looks similar to PR65560.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65595
Bug ID: 65595
Summary: [5 Regression] Linux kernel build failure: ICE: in
as_a, at is-a.h:192
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Patch to do so preapproved for trunk, if the testcase is still
auto-parallelized in that case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65595
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Started with r221707.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65593
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65595
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65592
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65591
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65588
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65595
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener ---
So how is the compile-time regression now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64715
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65595
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hi,
the ICE does not reproduce for me, but from backtrace it seems quite clear
that the following fix should work:
Index: cgraph.c
===
--- cgraph.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 35159
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35159&action=edit
Patch implementing cloning penalties
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #9)
> Actually, there is one detail. Cloning SCC and keeping it a SCC is cool
> thing (as one avoid passing constant parameter across the recursive loop),
> but clonnin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65583
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Mar 27 09:33:20 2015
New Revision: 221723
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221723&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/65583
* ubsan.c (ubsan_create_edge): New function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65583
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65525
--- Comment #7 from Roger Orr ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #10 from felix.ospald at gmx dot de ---
gcc still compiles, but I think I found the answer here:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24219263/openmp-on-a-2-socket-system
"The problem was due to a bug in Linux Kernel kernel 3.11.10-7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65596
Bug ID: 65596
Summary: [4.9 Regression] NAMELIST bug with f2003: reads too
far
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65588
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hubicka at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65597
Bug ID: 65597
Summary: ICE in build_outer_var_ref, at omp-low.c:1043
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp
Severity: normal
Priority: P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65598
Bug ID: 65598
Summary: Misleading error message for out-of-class definition
of explicit conversion operator
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65597
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65596
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65596
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65599
Bug ID: 65599
Summary: [c++14] Failing overload resolution when combining
return type deduction and explicit R/L-value methods
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #11 from felix.ospald at gmx dot de ---
I can confirm that the bug still exists for the trunk version (rev 221721) of
gcc.
So as mentioned above it is very likely the kernel bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65495
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Fri Mar 27 10:29:04 2015
New Revision: 221725
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221725&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65495
* c-family/c.opt (fcheck-pointer-bounds): List
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65495
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65595
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Mar 27 10:33:17 2015
New Revision: 221726
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221726&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/65595
* cgraph.c (cgraph_update_edges_for_call_stmt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65595
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Well, GOMP_parallel doesn't always create new threads, but still it has some
> synchronization overhead etc. IMNSHO the testcase should be scaled down
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65598
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And use M instead of N in the outer two loops and define M to something lower
(100, 50 or similar)? The test doesn't verify the result anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60686
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arvo at me dot com
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65598
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65599
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60943
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anders at sjogren dot info
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65590
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-26, at 5:43 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> This should have been fixed by r221618, see
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00124.html.
Fail was with r221591.
Dave
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65593
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> And use M instead of N in the outer two loops and define M to something
> lower (100, 50 or similar)?
Yep, that works:
...
index 5071630..e9e4b56 1006
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> The test doesn't verify the result anyway.
I've written some initialization and verification code:
...
index e9e4b56..cbc5735 100644
--- a/libgomp/test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
LGTM, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65600
Bug ID: 65600
Summary: [5 Regression] bost testsuite failure: ICE:
Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594
--- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Mar 27 12:10:16 2015
New Revision: 221728
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221728&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add verification to libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-6.c
2015-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594
--- Comment #9 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Mar 27 12:10:07 2015
New Revision: 221727
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221727&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Scale down libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-6.c
2015-03-27 Tom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65600
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Started with r221718.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65499
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Mar 27 12:45:10 2015
New Revision: 221730
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221730&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65499
* include/std/chrono: Add using-directive for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65499
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65598
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65600
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Oops, really hope this is last one of this can of worms :(
The problem here is that resolve_speculation assumes the cgraph node exists. I
am testing the following:
Index: ipa-inline-analysis.c
===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65601
Bug ID: 65601
Summary: add bugzilla keyword "easyhack"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: web
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
A working patch has been submitted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00132.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
felix.ospald at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65602
Bug ID: 65602
Summary: gcc.target/i386/mpx tests FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65602
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65602
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
> All link tests will fail on all non-Linux targets since only those provide
> the
> MPX runtime libraries. The check_effective_target_mpx test in
> gcc.target/i386/m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65593
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52763
g...@mundle-online.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||g...@mundle-online.net
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61250
--- Comment #17 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
Bug 65550 may be a duplicate of this one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65052
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65550
howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at bromo dot med
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65603
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
This is 176.gcc in SPEC CPU 2000.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65603
Bug ID: 65603
Summary: [5 Regression] lto1: internal compiler error: in as_a,
at is-a.h:192
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65604
Bug ID: 65604
Summary: MIPS -fno-delayed-branch generates incorrect code with
-mcheck-zero-division
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65603
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65602
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Ilya Enkovich ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
>> All link tests will fail on all non-Linux targets since only those provide
>> the
>> MPX runtime li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65603
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65595
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64860
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65443
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #14 from vri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65602
--- Comment #3 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Created attachment 35162
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35162&action=edit
patch to fix mpx target check and alloca usage
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
> I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52763
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65588
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
The reduced testcase does not reproduce for me. The original source does. We
do insert undefined register variables into symbol table (not sure how much
sense it makes, but lets not change it now).
The probl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65407
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Mar 27 14:47:24 2015
New Revision: 221734
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221734&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-27 Vladimir Makarov
PR target/65407
* ira-costs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65575
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Sutton ---
Created attachment 35163
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35163&action=edit
Patch applied in r221733
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65575
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Sutton ---
Apparently I do not understand declarators. The attached patch searches through
the declarator structure to filter out declarator structures to which a
requires-clause cannot be attached.
I updated the pr665
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65588
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hi,
this patch fixes the partitioner and also avoids assemble_undefined_decl to be
called
on hard registers and value exprs. I am not sure how the reduced testcase
could work,
since I think the bug needs parti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #37 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to do...@seketeli.org from comment #9)
> "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
>
> > So either one keeps track of all source locations of all "interesting"
> > characters within strings, which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65052
--- Comment #6 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
Fixed how? Is Nick's patch good?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65601
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/editkeywords.cgi?action=add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65600
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Mar 27 15:13:54 2015
New Revision: 221735
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221735&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65600
* cgraph.c (cgraph_update_edges_for_call_stmt_node):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65600
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65560
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65593
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65531
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Mar 27 15:19:35 2015
New Revision: 221736
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221736&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65531
* symtab.c (symtab_node::verify_symtab_nodes): Fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65536
--- Comment #49 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #46)
> Manuel,
> I will hopefully commit the cache patch today or tomorrow morning. It does
> not solve full issue. What we have is
> 1) we still drop columns for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65591
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65601
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65511
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35164
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35164&action=edit
patch with test-case, currently testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65605
Bug ID: 65605
Summary: [4.9 Regression] Namelist mishandles delim
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfor
1 - 100 of 183 matches
Mail list logo
