https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85964
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7)
> Not a regression since #pragma GCC unroll is new.
Note that https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85964#c2 provides
test-case that does not use GCC unroll.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85683
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 30 07:19:24 2018
New Revision: 260915
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260915&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2018-05-08 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85662
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 30 07:20:58 2018
New Revision: 260916
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260916&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2018-05-10 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85992
Bug ID: 85992
Summary: Invalid optimization with atanf
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85993
Bug ID: 85993
Summary: config/sh/sh.c:10878: suspicious if .. else chain
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85696
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 30 07:34:56 2018
New Revision: 260917
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260917&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2018-05-11 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85756
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 30 07:35:48 2018
New Revision: 260918
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260918&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2018-05-14 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85952
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 30 07:36:49 2018
New Revision: 260919
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260919&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2018-05-29 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85975
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> Stephan,
>
> I tried the simply patch suggested in your analysis and
> it does fix the problem. I need to extend the patch to
> fix the m4 files that utilize the macro as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85683
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85662
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85696
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85952
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for 8.2+ so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85964
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Known t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85993
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85994
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85994
Bug ID: 85994
Summary: Comparison failure in 64-bit libgcc *_{sav,res}ms64*.o
on Solaris/x86
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84206
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85558
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
See PR59480.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85995
Bug ID: 85995
Summary: GCC defines __STDC__ and __STDC_VERSION__ even when
used with options that break C conformance
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85805
--- Comment #5 from Sandor Zsuga ---
I received a test report with avr-gcc 8.1.0 , -O2 optimization level: The
behavior is present ( https://www.avrfreaks.net/comment/2477081#comment-2477081
).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85958
--- Comment #3 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #1)
> > My idea of what would be clearest is :-
> >
> > Cannot pass ‘const int‘ as ‘int&‘ (non const)
>
> I don't think th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85971
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I think this is actually two different bugs.
> One where cstore is not working when there is a function call inbetween.
> If I add an argument to CreateChecksum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85974
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85976
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85980
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85984
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85992
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85996
Bug ID: 85996
Summary: f951: internal compiler error: gfc_trans_select(): Bad
type for case expr.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85987
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85997
Bug ID: 85997
Summary: Bogus -Wvla warning from function array argument with
size expression
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85995
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I guess that would break way more code than the current state (or force people
to use -std=cXX over -std=gnuXX).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85994
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
> I see several possible fixes:
>
> * Just compile those files with -g0: there's probably no point in gas adding
> debug info anyway.
>
> * Restrict the cpp -P w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85992
--- Comment #2 from Matt Peddie ---
Thank you for your quick response. The explanation makes sense, and I agree
this is not a bug. I'd like to understand -- this seems to me to imply that
GCC will use MPFR to evaluate calls to libm functions ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85984
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85984
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Guess easiest fix would be to disable hot/cold partitioning in naked functions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85871
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85992
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Matt Peddie from comment #2)
> Is there a way to disable this behavior?
-fno-builtin (or a more specific -fno-builtin-atanf) tells gcc to handle atanf
as a regular function call, not as a standard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85994
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85871
--- Comment #6 from Christophe Lyon ---
This is not a typo. A .sum file has a line like this:
apm_64.tcwg-apm_64-build/g++.sum.xz:FAIL: g++.dg/gcov/gcov-8.C -std=gnu++11
gcov failed: File
'/home/tcwg-buildslave/workspace/tcwg-buildfarm/tcwg-apm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85994
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
> Why does this affect only new files, i.e. how did existing libgcc .S files
> avoid running into the same issue?
Besides the {avx,sse}_{sav,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85994
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
>> I see several possible fixes:
>>
>> * Just compile those files with -g0: there's probably no poin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85993
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85960
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85992
--- Comment #4 from Matt Peddie ---
-fno-builtin-atanf does the trick. Thanks, Marc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85960
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85984
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70693
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
Nearly three weeks later, any progress ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85989
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85989
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85989
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
for (b_P5 = 0; b_P5 < 8; b_P5++) {
P26 = P29;
P29 = -(int)*P5;
}
for (b_P5 = 0; b_P5 < 3; b_P5++) {
for (P29 = 0; P29 < 9; P29++) {
i0 = P26;
if (P26 < 0) {
i0 = 0;
so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85964
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 30 14:55:04 2018
New Revision: 260954
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260954&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-30 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/85964
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85964
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
The CFG cleanup hog is gone on trunk now - an artificial testcase triggering it
would need to present us with a large number of independently discoverable
branches like maybe
if (foo)
{
tem = 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85879
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cesar at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51571
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2011-12-15 00:00:00 |2018-5-30
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85976
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-reduction
--- Comment #5 from Mare
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85975
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> Stephan,
>
> I tried the simply patch suggested in your analysis and
> it does fix the problem. I need to extend the patch to
> fix the m4 files that utilize the macro as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85998
Bug ID: 85998
Summary: feature request: support C++17 parallel STL
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85998
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85998
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-11/msg00112.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85925
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85998
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83009
--- Comment #10 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: avieira
Date: Wed May 30 15:59:14 2018
New Revision: 260957
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260957&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Reverting r260635
gcc
2018-05-30 Andre Vieira
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83962
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83852
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83962
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It hasn't been backported to 7.x/6.x, so no, unless we decide not to backport
it there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85956
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85999
Bug ID: 85999
Summary: 416.gamess slowed down by BB vectorization
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85873
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed May 30 17:33:06 2018
New Revision: 260969
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260969&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85873 - constant initializer_list array not in .rodata.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86000
Bug ID: 86000
Summary: ICE with requires statement in a non constexpr if
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86001
Bug ID: 86001
Summary: explicit default constructor not allowed in anonymous
aggregate
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85956
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86002
Bug ID: 86002
Summary: ICE with requires in constexpr if condition
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86003
Bug ID: 86003
Summary: [8 Regression] GCC fails to build when configured
--with-cpu=xscale
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85998
--- Comment #3 from Jeff Hammond ---
Other projects use the existence of feature requests in their bug tracker for
prioritization of development. How does GCC manage this information? How do
you track GCC roadmap development if not through this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85977
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Seems like deducing the template parameter N fails because of the type
mismatch; parm is long int (element type of the array), while arg is int
(element type of {1, 2, 3}):
21789 /* We have already che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85998
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85958
Tavian Barnes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tavianator at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81401
Paul Eggert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eggert at gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85807
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed May 30 19:31:11 2018
New Revision: 260972
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260972&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85807 - ICE with call in template NSDMI.
* init.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86003
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 85920, which changed state.
Bug 85920 Summary: Incomplete transition to IFNs for scatter/gather support,
drop vectorize.builtin_{gather,scatter} target hooks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85920
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85919
Bug ID: 85919
Summary: Incomplete transition to IFNs for scatter/gather
support, drop vectorize.builtin_{gather,scatter}
target hooks
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85920
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85998
--- Comment #5 from Jeff Hammond ---
> Finishing C++17 support in libstdc++ is already one of our top priorities for
> GCC 9. There's no need to ask for it, and doing so won't affect priorities.
> The missing pieces are documented:
> https://gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77513
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77513
--- Comment #8 from Ville Voutilainen ---
See r260973
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85976
--- Comment #6 from Sylwester Arabas ---
BTW, according to this gcc www entry, Blitz++ seems to listed as a part of GCC
test suite: https://gcc.gnu.org/testing/testing-blitz.html
Is this information up to date?
Was this issue somehow triggered i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85989
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85998
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85956
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85977
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
// PR c++/85977, Incorrect handling of array reference size deduction
// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
template
void fn1 (const char (&)[N]) { static_assert (N == 3, "fn1");}
template
void fn2 (const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85977
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004
Bug ID: 86004
Summary: [9 regression] Several lto test cases begin failing
with r260963
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
p)
lw s0,8(sp)
addisp,sp,16
jr ra
.size atomic, .-atomic
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 9.0.0 20180530 (experimental)"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85879
cesar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
--- Comment #3 from ce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86006
Bug ID: 86006
Summary: compile time error generic type bound procedure
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85369
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85369
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed May 30 22:24:43 2018
New Revision: 260976
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260976&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/85369 - no -Wstringop-overflow for a strcpy / stpcpy call wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
Can you please check in g++.log what kind of error you get?
Incremental linking now produce LTO objects while previously it did produce
final binary. I went through testcases where this makes difference and add
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
