http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58816
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
I had a look with a cross cc1plus and I think the below is enough to resolve
the issue. Can you fully test it? x86_64-linux is still fine with it. By the
way, we have got a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58805
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58820
Bug ID: 58820
Summary: lambda multiple inheritance operator() not ambiguous
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58805
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
(In reply to vries from comment #10)
I've tried out the example from comment 9.
Tree-tail-merge considers the statements
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58772
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
This is relevant
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3396.htm but it's late
for C++14, hopefully for C++17. Honestly I didn't follow the topic much last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58805
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #10)
I've tried out the example from comment 9.
Tree-tail-merge considers the statements without effect because:
...
(gdb) call
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58809
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58809
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Maybe fold_range_test should just return 0 when the type is not
INTEGRAL_TYPE_P. If that's the case, I can take this one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58779
Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58822
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58805
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #14)
No it shouldn't. It should return true if the stmt has side-effects that
are _not_ explicit in the statement. This side-effect is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58823
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58815
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
In any case, keep in mind ulf that we are looking for help in this area: for
various reasons, the code isn't really maintained these days (eg, the original
implementor moved to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43361
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nocannedmeat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58805
--- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've tried out the example from comment 9.
Tree-tail-merge considers the statements without effect because:
...
(gdb) call debug_gimple_stmt (stmt)
# .MEM_10 = VDEF .MEM_3(D)
__asm__(movq $42, %0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57899
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58825
Bug ID: 58825
Summary: endless loop compiling nested bind expression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58821
Bug ID: 58821
Summary: conditional reduction does not vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58825
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58817
Bug ID: 58817
Summary: optimize alloca with constant size
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58820
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com ---
This looks like a more fundamental name lookup problem of gcc to me. It can be
reproduced with function object types that are no lambda closures:
template class... Fs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58806
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
struct A { int i; double d; };
void g(double*);
void f(){
A a;
a.i=1;
g(a.d);
if(a.i != 1) __builtin_abort();
}
Here, I guess g is allowed to take its argument, cast it to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 21 11:34:04 2013
New Revision: 203890
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203890root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-10-21 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58820
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58824
Bug ID: 58824
Summary: Lambda trigger internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58814
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58805
--- Comment #14 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
No it shouldn't. It should return true if the stmt has side-effects that
are _not_ explicit in the statement. This side-effect is explicitely there.
Hmm, a rather deceptive name then, if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58794
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm sure that we can build such FIELD_DECL only with Ada though, so, Eric,
can you provide a testcase where that happens - thus, that shows that
side-effects cannot be ignored
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58794
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58824
Thomas Sanchez thomas.sanchz at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31058|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58826
Bug ID: 58826
Summary: Runfail on CPU2006 436.cactusADM with after r203739
for core-avx2 target.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58824
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58572
Gerald Pfeifer gerald at pfeifer dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58813
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
With trunk gfortran gives
troutmask:sgk[209] gfc4x -c b.f90
b.f90:5.16:
type(t)
1
Error: Derived type 't' at (1) is being used
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58824
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Sanchez thomas.sanchz at gmail dot com ---
The code is 21 lines... I can't reproduce the bug otherwise...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58794
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 21 13:33:29 2013
New Revision: 203891
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203891root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-10-21 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58824
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|thomas.sanchz at gmail dot com |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58824
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
I said *without includes* ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58794
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58772
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58822
Bug ID: 58822
Summary: Segfault when calling make_shared
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The patch will fix the regression part, to be left to optimize is the
pointer offset association bits which should best be done in GIMPLE
reassoc which doesn't yet associate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58824
Thomas Sanchez thomas.sanchz at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31059|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58824
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Great, thanks a lot!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58442
--- Comment #7 from Martin Husemann martin at netbsd dot org ---
I can reproduce the same crash on a different input file with a amd64 - vax
cross compiler (so we can drop the theory that a miscompiled recog_1 function
causes this).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58824
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Sanchez thomas.sanchz at gmail dot com ---
You're welcome, good luck !
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58821
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 21, 2013, at 2:35 AM, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58772
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58761
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58729
--- Comment #15 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Mon Oct 21 13:52:39 2013
New Revision: 203893
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203893root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-10-20 Edward Smith-Rowland 3dw...@verizon.net
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58817
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We do this transform in fold_builtin_alloca_with_align (), I'm not sure but
maybe it does not happen because 'a' escapes to f.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58804
--- Comment #10 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Mon Oct 21 13:52:39 2013
New Revision: 203893
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203893root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-10-20 Edward Smith-Rowland 3dw...@verizon.net
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58812
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58442
--- Comment #8 from Martin Husemann martin at netbsd dot org ---
And apparently same cause:
ooops, bogus rtx mem attrs: 0x4
(subreg:SI (reg/v:DI 70 [ xtime ]) 4)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58809
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58810
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58816
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58772
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gmail dot com pinskia at gmail dot com ---
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 21, 2013, at 2:35 AM, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58772
Tobias
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58818
Bug ID: 58818
Summary: parameters optimized out using -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: inline-asm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58818
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58804
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58580
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58729
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58816
Bug ID: 58816
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE have tree_list in
private_is_attribute_p
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48879
Branko Drevensek branko.drevensek at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58806
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
You cannot find the PR because it's already implemented via the fn spec
attribute (conveniently not user-accessible because bike-shedding about
whether separate attributes are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58794
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The issue being that a.f and a.f are not equal because even with
OEP_CONSTANT_ADDRESS_OF set we get into
case COMPONENT_REF:
/* Handle operand 2 the same as for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58779
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58819
Bug ID: 58819
Summary: return value ignored using -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: inline-asm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58817
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58800
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.4, 4.8.3,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58794
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58013
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58791
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58823
Bug ID: 58823
Summary: Uninitialized variable warning is missing
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58789
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58772
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to pins...@gmail.com from comment #6)
Less portable as that only works on x86 while posix_memalign works on all
posix targets.
Or more portable as it also works on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58799
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58823
--- Comment #1 from Aaron Miller nocannedmeat at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 31057
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31057action=edit
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58772
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The syntax would be
int main()
{
Actor *act;
::posix_memalign (act, 16, sizeof (Actor));
new (*act) Actor;
}
that is, you have to use a different allocator. Paolo, does
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58013
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31056
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31056action=edit
Patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58826
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58818
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58013
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48592
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58826
--- Comment #2 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com ---
In fact LRA is responsible for this failure - there is a bug in constant
regeneration. LRA correctly regenerates all occurrences of virtual register
which is not allocated(i.e. it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58572
Gerald Pfeifer gerald at pfeifer dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58819
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58805
--- Comment #16 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Btw, you'd have had the same issue with the aggregate
return of a pure/const function call, no?
For this bug to trigger, we need a gimple statement:
- without side-effects
- with one SSA_OP_DEF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58572
Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58809
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch posted for the first testcase:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg01714.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58682
Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58759
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58813
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58759
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58813
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 04:01:43PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Error: Procedure 'yS???+' in generic interface 't' at (1) is neither
function nor subroutine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58781
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
Created attachment 31061
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31061action=edit
Busybox showing that the passed in string to the operator is OK.
When I run the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
Tomalak Geret'kal tom at kera dot name changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tom at kera dot
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
