https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92523
--- Comment #2 from Ryou Ezoe ---
That is regression.
The latest HEAD build of the Clang as of now indeed pass that code. But this is
explicitly ill-formed code. parentheses are required.
See 13.1, paragraph 9, Note.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93469
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2020-01-27 00:0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92523
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Right, the code is invalid. This is just a diagnostic QoI bug, not
rejects-valid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92541
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93409
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5ab5d81b364ba500b288d9bcc1232ce7953a3b3f
commit r10-6348-g5ab5d81b364ba500b288d9bcc1232ce7953a3b3f
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92456
--- Comment #2 from Tim Ruehsen ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> @Tim: Can you please send the patch to GCC patches mailing list?
It's long ago, but finally found it:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg02593.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93409
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93365
--- Comment #7 from markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #6)
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:36:45PM +, markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
> > gfc_simplify_expr calls simplify_parameter_variable which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92672
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't think this testcase is valid, because there is no guarantee the
explicit task will not be an included task (just try OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 to force
it, but there are many reasons why the implementation mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93365
--- Comment #8 from markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to markeggleston from comment #7)
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #6)
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:36:45PM +, markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org
> > wrote:
> > > gfc_si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93494
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:efd26bbc81e94a324b3d3331a32eac089af8db1d
commit r10-6349-gefd26bbc81e94a324b3d3331a32eac089af8db1d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92731
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92735
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93494
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92757
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93491
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92776
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92700
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
At first glance this looks like a dup of PR80635
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92777
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92789
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Can we close it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92700
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||f.heckenb...@fh-soft.de
--- Comment #39 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92789
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 92700, which changed state.
Bug 92700 Summary: wrong "unintialized" warning with std::optional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92700
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92660
--- Comment #1 from Jonny Grant ---
Improved suggestion with the sign indicated:
const int n = 411;
:1:15: warning: overflow in conversion from 'long int' (signed 64bit)
to 'int' (signed 32bit) changes value from '411' to '-18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92792
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92795
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92797
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92672
--- Comment #3 from Cimbali ---
Would it be possible to deactivate that optimization when shared is not the
default mapping? In practice here explicitly setting `shared(i)` has no effect
at all.
Note that I already recommended against such trick
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92808
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92813
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92814
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92812
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92824
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92834
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92844
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92880
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92819
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
So when we hoist the narrowing across the permute to, for corge, instead of
_1 = __MEM (p_4(D));
_5 = {_1, _1, _1, _1};
_6 = __VEC_PERM (x_2(D), _5, { 3ul, 5ul, 6ul, 7ul });
_7 = __BIT_FIELD_REF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92910
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92911
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92912
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93509
Bug ID: 93509
Summary: Stack protector should offer trap-only handling
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92662
--- Comment #8 from Michael Matz ---
>From the GCC perspective, yes. From the standard-is-surprising perspective,
no, but that probably doesn't belong to the GCC bugzilla. So, yeah, can be
closed
for gcc 9 (theoretically it's still a bug in gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92244
--- Comment #5 from bin cheng ---
Vectorizer generates following address bases:
_79 = (sizetype) len_6(D);
_80 = _79 + 18446744073709551600;
vectp.14_78 = head_7(D) + _80;
_89 = (sizetype) len_6(D);
_90 = _89 + 18446744073709551600;
v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Bisection shows this started with my r8-3850-g39382c092ee9bb5c00330 change.
If I change the testcase slightly (still -Og):
unsigned a;
unsigned
foo (unsigned x)
{
unsigned y = __builtin_bswap64 (-a);
x =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93496
--- Comment #2 from Justin LaPolla ---
1. Was the root cause found and fixed intentionally? Or was it fixed
incidentally because of other unrelated changes that happened to cover the bug?
2. Do you have a regression test in place that would dete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89357
--- Comment #10 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #9)
> Fixed for GCC 9.3/10. The patch doesn't apply cleanly to the GCC 8 branch,
> is it important to fix there?
Not important for me.
Thank you for resolvin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93450
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d177c49cd31131c8cededb216da30877d8a3856d
commit r10-6351-gd177c49cd31131c8cededb216da30877d8a3856d
Author: David Malcolm
Date: We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93450
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93510
Bug ID: 93510
Summary: [gfortran] OpenMP target teams distribute reduction
with multiply operator gives incorrect results
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58237
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 58237, which changed state.
Bug 58237 Summary: gcc fails to detect obvious resource leaks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58237
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47740
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47740&action=edit
gcc10-pr93505.patch
Untested combiner fix. IMHO even when we fix expand_binop we want it anyway,
because we d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92726
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Sch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33989
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34043
Bug 34043 depends on bug 33989, which changed state.
Bug 33989 Summary: Extra load/store for float with union
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33989
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42588
Bug 42588 depends on bug 33989, which changed state.
Bug 33989 Summary: Extra load/store for float with union
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33989
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93501
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93498
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As for the expand_binop bug, if I fix it like:
--- gcc/optabs.c.jj 2020-01-12 11:54:36.690409230 +0100
+++ gcc/optabs.c2020-01-30 16:05:43.520649234 +0100
@@ -1226,16 +1226,22 @@ expand_binop (ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92380
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92415
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92323
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:97b40c39208e384fd3ead463b85cddda9e55a375
commit r10-6353-g97b40c39208e384fd3ead463b85cddda9e55a375
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92323
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 92323, which changed state.
Bug 92323 Summary: bogus -Warray-bounds after unrolling despite
__builtin_unreachable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92323
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Created attachment 47740 [details]
> gcc10-pr93505.patch
>
> Untested combiner fix. IMHO even when we fix expand_binop we want it
> anyway, because we do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> and so I'd say even if we just don't fix expand_binop, this shows an
> optimization opportunity for the rs6000 backend
> if the rotlw instruction only uses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> > > and so I'd say even if we just don't fix expand_binop,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> > and so I'd say even if we just don't fix expand_binop, this shows an
> > optimization opportunity for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92570
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Looks like "make BOOT_CFLAGS='-fanalyzer' bootstrap" could also be used, but
it's nice to have a way to do this via configure flags.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91824
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92570
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93416
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91913
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Is the above what you'd like to see or do you want something else?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93106
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91212
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Happens with a class too:
struct T { int i; };
struct X {
X(T&) { } // #1
X(const T&) { __builtin_abort (); } // #2
};
X
fn ()
{
T buf;
return buf;
}
int
main()
{
X c = fn ();
}
is it actually
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93511
Bug ID: 93511
Summary: ICE in make_region_for_type analyzing zlib/gzwrite.c
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93384
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 47741
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47741&action=edit
gcc10-pr93384.patch
Untested fix (only the make localalias name unique part, not the
ipa-pure-const.c change).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93496
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Justin LaPolla from comment #2)
> 3. My current project requires that we compile with GCC 8.1.0. To avoid this
> bug, we are disallowing virtual inheritance in our code by compiling with
> `-We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87103
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Benson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:004ac7b780308dc899e565b887c7def0a6e100f2
commit r10-6356-g004ac7b780308dc899e565b887c7def0a6e100f2
Author: Andrew Benson
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91773
Bug 91773 depends on bug 87103, which changed state.
Bug 87103 Summary: [OOP] ICE in gfc_new_symbol() due to overlong symbol name
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87103
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87103
Andrew Benson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93473
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Benson ---
PR87103 is now resolved, which should also solve this problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93501
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Benson ---
PR87103 is now resolved, which should also solve this problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92789
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|rsa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92749
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93512
Bug ID: 93512
Summary: Introduce rotate_truncation_mask
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92111
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93513
Bug ID: 93513
Summary: internal compiler error internal compiler error:
unexpected expression ‘(char)(e)’ of kind cast_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84050
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-01-26 00:00:00 |2020-1-30
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92587
--- Comment #2 from DIL ---
Created attachment 47742
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47742&action=edit
Updated ICE reproducer
Fixed build issues for gfortran-8. Builds with gfortran-8.x but produces ICE
with gfortran-9.x.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92587
--- Comment #3 from DIL ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> For older GCC 8 I see:
>
> tensor_recursive.F90:738:36:
>
> private TensBodyGetDataDescr
> 1
> Error: Symbol ‘tensbodygetdatad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92587
--- Comment #4 from DIL ---
Sorry, I was removing unnecessary dependencies in order to reduce the
reproducer source size, but forgot to remove PRIVATE declaration for the
deleted procedures. Now fixed. It builds with gfortran-8.x but produces ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93514
Bug ID: 93514
Summary: missing warning on a strlen with a negative or just
past-the-end offset
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93513
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91465
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andij.cr at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93513
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
101 - 200 of 258 matches
Mail list logo
