https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=427404
--- Comment #9 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #8)
> Created attachment 132844 [details]
> functional support ISA 3.1 for reduced precision outer product operations
>
> Updated patch to be consistent with the
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=427400
--- Comment #18 from Julian Seward ---
Looks OK to me. Thanks for the rework. OK to land.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404076
--- Comment #5 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #4)
> Created attachment 132244 [details]
> s390x: Support for z14 (arch12) vector instructions
This all looks totally reasonable to me; OK to land as-is.
M
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=427404
--- Comment #6 from Julian Seward ---
Functional support fix (attachment 132180) -- OK to land.
testsuite support for the reduced precision outer product operations
(attachment
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=427401
--- Comment #7 from Julian Seward ---
These look OK to land. No specific comments.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=427400
--- Comment #10 from Julian Seward ---
Also I see you have a helper to compute popcount64
(population_count64_helper). You know there are some fairly short IR
sequences that will do that in-line, right? Even if you don't want to do use
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=427400
--- Comment #9 from Julian Seward ---
All 6 patches look good to me .. OK to land.
I'm always impressed how many test cases you have!
One comment about the helper function deposit_bits_under_mask_helper and
its friends, though. The way you have
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425820
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=426123
--- Comment #4 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #0)
> Created attachment 131370 [details]
> add isa 3.1 support for instructiions to guest_ppc_toIR.c
ok to land
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watchi
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=426123
--- Comment #3 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #1)
> Created attachment 131371 [details]
> Add 3.1 instruction test suite support
ok to land
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425232
--- Comment #18 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #8)
> Created attachment 130796 [details]
> testsuite support vector Integer multiply divide modulo instructions
ok to land
--
You are receiving this mail becaus
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425232
--- Comment #17 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #7)
> Created attachment 130795 [details]
> testsuite support vsx 32-byte storage access instructions
ok to land
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watchi
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425232
--- Comment #16 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #6)
> Created attachment 130794 [details]
> testsuite support set boolean extension instructions
Deferring comment on this, pending clarification of what the implemen
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425232
--- Comment #15 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #5)
> Created attachment 130793 [details]
> testsuite support byte reverse instructions
ok to land
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425232
--- Comment #14 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #4)
> Created attachment 130792 [details]
> functional support Vector integer multiply divide modulo instructions
ok to land
--
You are receiving this mail becaus
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425232
--- Comment #13 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #3)
> Created attachment 130791 [details]
> functional support VSX 32-byte storage access instructiions
ok to land
+ store( mkexpr( EA ), unop( Iop_V128to64, ge
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425232
--- Comment #12 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #2)
> Created attachment 130790 [details]
> funcitonal support set boolean extension instructions
Something doesn't seem correct here. What is implemented doesn't matc
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425232
--- Comment #11 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #1)
> Created attachment 130789 [details]
> functional support byte reverse instructions
ok to land
> + case 0xBB: { // brd Byte-Reverse double wo
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423195
--- Comment #26 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #13)
> Created attachment 130630 [details]
> Add check for isa 3.1 support
Ok to land.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423195
--- Comment #25 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #14)
> Created attachment 130631 [details]
> Instruction prefix support
ok to land provided at least that the dis_nop_prefix return type is fixed
properly.
> +
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423195
--- Comment #24 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #15)
> Created attachment 130632 [details]
> Add prefixed support for the following word
ok to land but please at least consider the following:
> +/* Prefix ins
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423195
--- Comment #23 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #21)
> Created attachment 131014 [details]
> Test suite foundation
ok to land.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423195
--- Comment #22 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #18)
> Created attachment 130690 [details]
> Testsuite load store word instructions
Ok to land.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423195
--- Comment #11 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #5)
> Created attachment 130176 [details]
> Initial load and store instruction tests
>
> 0004-Initial-ISA-3.1-instruction-tests.patch
>
> Testsuite for new
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423195
--- Comment #9 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #3)
> Created attachment 130174 [details]
> Adds the support for prefix instructions
>
> 0002-ISA-3.1-Instruction-Prefix-Support.patch
>
> Adds the
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423195
--- Comment #10 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #4)
> Created attachment 130175 [details]
> Add prefixed support for the following word
>
> 0003-ISA-3.1-Add-prefixed-support-for-the-following-word-.patch
>
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423195
--- Comment #8 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #3)
> Created attachment 130174 [details]
> Adds the support for prefix instructions
>
> 0002-ISA-3.1-Instruction-Prefix-Support.patch
>
> Adds the
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423195
--- Comment #7 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #2)
> Created attachment 130173 [details]
> Add check for isa 3.1 support
>
> 0001-Add-check-for-isa-3.1-support.patch
>
> Adds base support for detecting
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=422715
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|valgrind 3.16.0 vex: the|valgrind 3.16.0 on 32-bit
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=422715
--- Comment #3 from Julian Seward ---
Created attachment 129180
--> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=129180=edit
A possible fix
Try this. It fixes the problem for me.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=422715
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
Err, ignore that last comment. I just discovered you attached a
complete log file. /me gets some more coffee.
Let me see if I can repro this locally. In principle this is easy
to fix, but I'd like to be able
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=422715
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
This is the new &&-idiom-recovery machinery in 3.16.0. Looks like
I didn't test it well enough on x86_32 (sigh). It should be trivial
to fix.
You unfortunately cut off the most important bit of the
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=419951
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=419271
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |UNMAINTAINED
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417238
--- Comment #5 from Julian Seward ---
> Julian, what do you think? Can we move this forward?
Yeah, the patch looks reasonable to me. Pls do land. Thank you all
for the analysis and the fix.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watch
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=418004
--- Comment #3 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #2)
> Created attachment 126880 [details]
> Updated Additional PPC 64 grail fixes
>
> Per the path review, Pin_V128CMov and Pin_AvCMov are functionally the same
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417187
--- Comment #20 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Stefan Maksimovic from comment #19)
> We'll land the changes if you don't mind.
>
> One question though, do you happen to know the exact date of the code freeze?
> In order for us to k
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417281
--- Comment #8 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #7)
> Created attachment 126871 [details]
> s390x: Fix register usage of conditional moves
Looks good to me. Two minor points:
For the NEVER case, it might b
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417281
--- Comment #6 from Julian Seward ---
Created attachment 126754
--> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=126754=edit
Longer disassembly for comment 5
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417281
--- Comment #5 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Julian Seward from comment #4)
> As a next step I am inclined to add printf lines for all cases (rules)
> in the insn selector. Then run the test case with and without &&-recovery
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417187
--- Comment #18 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Stefan Maksimovic from comment #17)
> Created attachment 126749 [details]
> handle branches in delay slots
>
> The result is that valgrind now mimics the behaviour of a program by
> em
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414270
Bug 414270 depends on bug 418702, which changed state.
Bug 418702 Summary: ARMv8.1 Paired register compare-and-swap instructions are
not supported
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=418702
What|Removed |Added
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=418702
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417187
--- Comment #16 from Julian Seward ---
Hi Stefan,
Thank you for the analyses, patches and testing. Overall, your
solutions look good to me. I have just one question, regarding
this patch:
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] mips: Treat delay slot as part
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417281
--- Comment #4 from Julian Seward ---
I studied this more today. One theory I had was that the insn selector
was generating wrong code for converting a value in the lowest bit of a
register into a condition code (function s390_isel_cc(),
case
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=415136
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414270
Bug 414270 depends on bug 415136, which changed state.
Bug 415136 Summary: ARMv8.1 Compare-and-Swap instructions are not supported
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=415136
What|Removed |Added
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=418435
--- Comment #3 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #2)
> This is a simple fix for the memcmp test fail. It addresses only the case
> where the two input strings are equal and then clears the condition code
> e
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417578
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
The supp proposal looks reasonable to me. +1 to land.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=416753
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsew...@acm.org
--- Comment #4 from Julian
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=416682
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mips3...@gmail.com
--
You are receiving
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417187
--- Comment #9 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Stefan Maksimovic from comment #8)
> > We pretty much agree with your analysis [..]
Good!
So .. last Sunday, in discussion at Fosdem, one of the three of you
(not sure who) suggested that this
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417187
--- Comment #6 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Stefan Maksimovic from comment #4)
> Created attachment 125693 [details]
> test program log with grail changes
Thank you for the attachments. Let me see if I understand what you are
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417187
--- Comment #5 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Stefan Maksimovic from comment #0)
> Created attachment 125689 [details]
> enable_grail_mips.diff
Just as a tiny comment on this patch, and not related to the main problem here:
the patch
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=253657
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59716|0 |1
is obsolete
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=416667
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Carl Love from comment #1)
Carl,
> I was able to reproduce the first issue but not
> the second. I sent email to the compiler team about the issue. Wondering
> if there is an assembl
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=412377
--- Comment #3 from Julian Seward ---
My problem is that it is safer if we don't have untested code in the tree.
That's why I didn't take your original patch. If you can post the minimum-
change patch that provides |cvac|, relative to the current
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=412377
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
In c82d35f6d67ed34cf20d79f90a7400bd7f83ebad just now I added
support for 'dc civac', which is the only one of the variants I
have a way to test right now. Is that a good enough fix for your
use case(s) ?
--
You
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=412408
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=390553
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407376
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||o...@aepfle.de
--- Comment #4 from Julian
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407376
--- Comment #3 from Julian Seward ---
Committed, c88133141a354d65568fb85037abc5e1f74ce46b.
Thanks for the patch.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=416464
--- Comment #3 from Julian Seward ---
Committed (+ an extra break), 685247b67a6104b71131de6ae6b2e455786a83ad.
Thanks for the patch.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=416464
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=416464
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Stefan Brüns from comment #1)
> Created attachment 125244 [details]
> Handle PR_CAPBSET_READ/DROP
This patch misses a "break;" statement.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385386
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=415757
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=416301
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
Andreas, given that newer GCC and LLVM do emit these now, it sounds like
supporting them is potentially of high priority. What's your view?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=415757
--- Comment #5 from Julian Seward ---
And you're aware of the as-yet unmerged PDB reading fixes at [1], yes?
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=253657
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=415757
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Alex Henrie from comment #1)
> There's probably a way past this, but even if there isn't, Valgrind produced
> several warnings about the Wine code that is executed up to that point.
Make sure
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393351
--- Comment #25 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to jody from comment #24)
> Ok - here it is
Where is it? I don't see it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393351
--- Comment #23 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #22)
> I was afraid that might happen as it's a local function that isn't
> exported...
Yeah, that happened to me -- I tried to find the function in my
F31 instal
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393351
--- Comment #18 from Julian Seward ---
As Tom says ..
> ==6297== valgrind: Unrecognised instruction at address 0x4a54820.
> ==6297==at 0x4A54820: H5P_dup_prop+64 (in /usr/lib64/libhdf5.so.103.1.0)
> I have no experience at all with o
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409429
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=411100
--- Comment #4 from Julian Seward ---
I'm thinking of the following, but I don't know the *exact* details of
what to suggest to build a PIE. Can you fill those in?
mmap(0x405000, 2147483648) failed in UME with error 22 (Invalid argument).
This can
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=411100
--- Comment #3 from Julian Seward ---
I just made a patch which changes the error message to this:
valgrind: mmap(0x405000, 2147483648) failed in UME with error 22 (Invalid
argument).
valgrind: This can be caused by executables with very large text
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=411100
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
Hmm, maybe it's time to change the tool load address .. again.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=411451
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=413119
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=410556
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409206
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407376
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
The patch causes the following fall-though warning, and the resulting
merged code does indeed look suspicious. Is this intended? If not
can you make a revised patch?
In file included from m_syswrap/syswrap-xen.c
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414053
--- Comment #3 from Julian Seward ---
This bug has been reported 5 times in the past year, as bug numbers 393351,
40, 414944, 411303 and 414053. I would like to fix it. I tried the
steps-to-reproduce shown in bugs 393351 and 414053, but without
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=411303
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
This bug has been reported 5 times in the past year, as bug numbers 393351,
40, 414944, 411303 and 414053. I would like to fix it. I tried the
steps-to-reproduce shown in bugs 393351 and 414053, but without
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414944
--- Comment #4 from Julian Seward ---
This bug has been reported 5 times in the past year, as bug numbers 393351,
40, 414944, 411303 and 414053. I would like to fix it. I tried the
steps-to-reproduce shown in bugs 393351 and 414053, but without
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40
--- Comment #5 from Julian Seward ---
This bug has been reported 5 times in the past year, as bug numbers 393351,
40, 414944, 411303 and 414053. I would like to fix it. I tried the
steps-to-reproduce shown in bugs 393351 and 414053, but without
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393351
--- Comment #14 from Julian Seward ---
This bug has been reported 5 times in the past year, as bug numbers 393351,
40, 414944, 411303 and 414053. I would like to fix it. I tried the
steps-to-reproduce shown in bugs 393351 and 414053, but without
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=253657
--- Comment #27 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Daniel Lehman from comment #25)
> Created attachment 122256 [details]
> patches for wine64 and pdbs
I will try and look at these patches in the next couple of weeks, to
see if they can be inte
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=415621
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
Do you have a syscall wrapper patch that fixes this, by any chance?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414870
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414278
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #124003|0 |1
is patch
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=413251
--- Comment #5 from Julian Seward ---
Carl, how hard would it be for you to make a patch to fix this
properly on the Valgrind side?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=412338
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |NOT A BUG
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=411203
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Yann Droneaud from comment #0)
> Unfortunately, AFAICT, valgrind doesn't have (yet) support for altering the
> tracee environment variables.
Why do you say that? AFAIK, V passes the en
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=410764
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=410757
--- Comment #7 from Julian Seward ---
/me confused. Do we need to do anything to fix this?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=410743
--- Comment #3 from Julian Seward ---
Mark, do we need to do anything about this?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=410556
--- Comment #3 from Julian Seward ---
Will be merged in the next month or so, providing it doesn't break anything.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=410102
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
There is too little information here to diagnose this. The IR you
show is indeed obviously wrong, but without a test case there's no
way to move this forward. Do you have a test case?
Also this is with 3.13
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393351
--- Comment #13 from Julian Seward ---
This bug has been reported 3 times now (also as 414944 and 40).
All very strange.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
101 - 200 of 891 matches
Mail list logo
