https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90325
Bug ID: 90325
Summary: GCC Error in gnat_to_gnu_entity using
Unchecked_Conversion to a discriminated type in a
Lock_Free protected type body
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90324
Bug ID: 90324
Summary: Accessibility: nested enum defined outside of class
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90323
Bug ID: 90323
Summary: ppc should convert equivalent sequences to vec_sel()
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90299
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Although that suggests I should report the error as errc::invalid_argument not
errc::no_such_file_or_directory.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90299
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And for the avoidance of doubt, the problem is not that !exists(p) (although
that is true) but that an empty path doesn't refer to any file system location.
absolute("does not exist") is not an error, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90299
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I changed absolute("", ec) to return an error intentionally, and I think
absolute("") should also return an error.
The effects of the function are to "compose an absolute path referencing the
same file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90322
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88829
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90314
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90322
Bug ID: 90322
Summary: Cannot deduce size of
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88829
i.hamsa at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i.hamsa at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90322
i.hamsa at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87833
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-05/msg00084.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90314
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 2 21:23:38 2019
New Revision: 270827
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270827=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90314 fix non-equivalent declarations of std::swap
In order to use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90321
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 90298, which changed state.
Bug 90298 Summary: libquadmath/math/catanhq.c:113: possibly redundant code ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90298
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90298
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90314
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Specifically, a new warning with -Wpedantic -Wsystem-headers and one of
-std=gnu++98 or -std=c++98 or -ansi, but not with any later dialects.
The alternatives are to leave the macro as it is now (which is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90314
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.3.0, 9.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90298
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
This is not redundant; the point is to convert -0 to +0.
Most of the libquadmath code is generated automatically from glibc sources
by substitutions done by update-quadmath.py (and most of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90321
Bug ID: 90321
Summary: [C++17] GCC allows structured binding (decomposition)
of an object of type derived from a closure type
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90320
Bug ID: 90320
Summary: Explicit constructor called implicitly
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90319
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90319
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87833
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90319
Bug ID: 90319
Summary: [C++17] aggregate initialization of base: ICE in
assign_temp
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Why? Those actually proved to be very efficient way to test the backends by
> exposing details late and discovered many bugs in the backends where the RTL
> in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90318
Bug ID: 90318
Summary: Non-constant test names in libphobos.shared
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90314
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90315
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90133
--- Comment #6 from Zaak ---
Oh, I see, so the *bug* has been backported... sigh. Well thanks for localizing
it to the range r243909-r244868.
I may try to do a bisection search to find the culprit and work up a
fix/patch... I haven't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90317
Bug ID: 90317
Summary: [7/8/9/10] ICE for arm sha1h and wrong optimisations
on sha1h/c/m/p
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90133
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Sure, I understand regresion, but perhaps I don't understand what you mean
> by "has been backported to GCC6".
The patch which caused the GCC7 regression has then been applied to GCC6: 6.0.0
works,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90133
--- Comment #4 from Zaak ---
Sure, I understand regresion, but perhaps I don't understand what you mean by
"has been backported to GCC6".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
Bug ID: 90316
Summary: large compile time increase in opt / alias stmt
walking for Go example
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90315
Bug ID: 90315
Summary: [10 regression] help text (or test for help text)
problem after r270788
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90306
--- Comment #2 from Paul Smith ---
Yes that seems like it would definitely solve the ICE.
But then this bug report changes to say that the output of -fpch-deps is wrong
(it's empty when it shouldn't be) :p :).
That would potentially cause
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90265
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2019-04-26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90311
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
At least from other PRs, I think it is important to differentiate in what is
emitted/matched for the multi-word addition (generally that has been using CC_V
mode I think on ARM) vs. what is emitted/matched
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6945
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 2 15:45:04 2019
New Revision: 270807
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270807=gcc=rev
Log:
Improve API docs for and
* config/allocator/new_allocator_base.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90314
Bug ID: 90314
Summary: clang gives error about exception specification in
declaration not matching definition after change in
move.h
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89400
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rearnsha at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90311
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> What is obvious to you, is not obvious to me. Most of the bug reports I
> create look quite similar (both testcases and compiler flags; eg.
> -fno-forward-propagate, -fno-dce, -fno-tree-dce and some other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47618
--- Comment #28 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #26)
> (In reply to qinzhao from comment #25)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #24)
> > >
> > > > How about the patch for the above 2? has it been committed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90312
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Bence Szabó from comment #3)
> Thank you for the patch!
>
> The main blocker is some msvc specific code in sanitizer_win_defs.h.
> WIN_FORCE_LINK, WIN_WEAK_ALIAS, WIN_EXPORT
>
> AFAIK the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310
--- Comment #7 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #6)
> > Sure; how do I detect if it is a duplicate?
>
> Look at the different PRs, both the code, the options and the target. Isn't
> there an obviously redundant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90313
Bug ID: 90313
Summary: Is an assignment elided with gcc7.3 -O2?
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Sure; how do I detect if it is a duplicate?
Look at the different PRs, both the code, the options and the target. Isn't
there an obviously redundant trend?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #3)
> Can you stop opening duplicate PRs, please? It's the 4th instance.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 89795 ***
Sure; how do I detect if it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47618
--- Comment #27 from Qing Zhao ---
> --- Comment #26 from Martin Liška ---
>
>> 2. Intel compiler (icc)'s profmerge is able to merge all the .dyn files
>> under one directory, does gcc have such functionality currently?
>
> We have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> To be honest, I can't see what you see with GCC 6. I've got:
>
> bl __popcountsi2
> ldr r3, .L6+16
> str r0, [r3]
> lsl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89795
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
*** Bug 90310 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87833
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Offloading
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87833
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90312
--- Comment #3 from Bence Szabó ---
Thank you for the patch!
The main blocker is some msvc specific code in sanitizer_win_defs.h.
WIN_FORCE_LINK, WIN_WEAK_ALIAS, WIN_EXPORT
AFAIK the sanitizer is from LLVM (or google?) and the official llvm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57378
Nikolay Bogoychev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nheart at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89653
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49774
Bug 49774 depends on bug 89509, which changed state.
Bug 89509 Summary: restrict doesnt work with subfield accesses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89509
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89509
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89653
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu May 2 14:08:08 2019
New Revision: 270800
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270800=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-05-02 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/89653
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89509
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu May 2 14:05:27 2019
New Revision: 270799
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270799=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-05-02 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/89509
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
--- Comment #32 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu May 2 13:58:47 2019
New Revision: 270798
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270798=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-05-02 Richard Biener
PR bootstrap/85574
* Makefile.tpl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90311
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90285
--- Comment #4 from Niall Douglas ---
> "non-aliasing reinterpret cast"? Whatever that means.
>
> // Reinterpret bytes by copying (not UB for TC types)
> memmove(temp, , sizeof(T));
>
> // Put reinterpreted bytes back. This avoids
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90285
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Niall Douglas from comment #2)
> To put this into a wider context, the detach and attach cast proposal passed
> muster earlier this week at the WG14 meeting that I am currently sitting in.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90285
--- Comment #2 from Niall Douglas ---
To put this into a wider context, the detach and attach cast proposal passed
muster earlier this week at the WG14 meeting that I am currently sitting in.
The current C2x draft allows this implementation of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90311
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90309
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90307
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90306
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90304
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90311
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90312
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46275
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46275=edit
Untested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90303
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90312
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|mliska at suse dot cz |
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90302
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I'm not sure a function call is the proper way to handle this. It would maybe
be better to use a DEBUG-stmt like thing (maybe even actually a debug stmt!).
In theory it would be possible to emit those
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90312
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90301
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90285
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51765
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51765
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 1 May 2019, asolokha at gmx dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51765
>
> --- Comment #10 from Arseny Solokha ---
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #8)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90273
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
Bug 45375 depends on bug 90273, which changed state.
Bug 90273 Summary: [10 Regression] GCC runs out of memory building Firefox
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90273
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90273
--- Comment #31 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu May 2 11:17:00 2019
New Revision: 270791
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270791=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-05-02 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90273
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86964
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019, patrickdepinguin at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86964
>
> --- Comment #11 from Thomas De Schampheleire com> ---
> It seems the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90312
Bug ID: 90312
Summary: Address sanitizer cannot be used with -mabi=ms since
r266073
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90311
Bug ID: 90311
Summary: [9/10 Regression] wrong code with -O and
__builtin_add_overflow() and compare
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310
Bug ID: 90310
Summary: [7/8/9/10 Regression] wrong code with -Os
-fno-forward-propagate
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90303
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
I see, i suppose we may lose some optimizations in early opts because of
this but your patch is safe and I don't think the missed optimizations
are very important (if they are we should avoid having structural
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90309
Bug ID: 90309
Summary: Spurious warning shift-negative-value
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90293
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87833
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #2 from Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90303
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No, TYPE_CANONICAL (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type)) is also NULL, for the same
reasons.
It is a template instantiation with a template parameter that needs structural
equality.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47618
--- Comment #26 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #25)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #24)
> >
> > > How about the patch for the above 2? has it been committed?
> >
> > It has been there for a while, please take
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
