On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Ulrich Weigand uweig...@de.ibm.com wrote:
Hello,
we've noticed the following behavior of the GCC vector extension, and were
wondering whether this is actually intentional:
When you use binary operators on two vectors, GCC will accept not only
operands
Hi,
I'm working on MIPS SIMD support for MSA. Can anyone point me towards
information about the need for an integer mode of equal size to any
supported vector mode?
I.e. if I support V4SImode is there any core GCC requirement that
TImode is also supported?
Any guidance is appreciated. The MIPS
Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Ulrich Weigand uweig...@de.ibm.com wrote:
So at the very least, we should bring the documentation in line with the
actual behavior. However, as seen above, that actual behavior is probably
not really useful in any case, at least in C.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 03:13:50PM +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote:
So I am wondering if I can rely on INSN_LUID checking orders of
difference instruction. If it can be done, I can easily differentiate
live range shrink and extend.
Further question is, if we don't insert new insns, can I use INSN_LUID
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20141211 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20141211/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64260
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42108
--- Comment #65 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42108
--- Comment #64 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63608
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
But the testcase looks completely artificial and this ICEs only because the
compiler is configured with --enable-checking.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62151
--- Comment #16 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For calls of distribute_notes with from_insn != NULL, I kind of understand why
it is vulnerable, at least when handling REG_DEAD notes.
When we distribute REG_DEAD note of one register from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60871
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Honza, any progress on this? People are regularly hitting this ICE in 4.9.x...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42108
--- Comment #66 from Salvatore Filippone sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it ---
As far as I remember(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #65)
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Fortran 66 compilers did. For instance, DO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57523
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61906
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58722
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63832
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 34246
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34246action=edit
Preprocessed source
Preprocessed source, compile with -O2 -Wall:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64260
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63832
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64255
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64262
Bug ID: 64262
Summary: [5 Regression] Several LTO failures after r218609 when
compiling with -fpic.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64258
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64259
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64000
tobias.polzer+gcc at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34053|0 |1
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58969
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Smith from comment #2)
(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #1)
Hmm, issue seems to be in too restrictive decl_maybe_constant_var_p
function.
I don't know
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859
Bug 59859 depends on bug 64258, which changed state.
Bug 64258 Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (on loop
optimization?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64258
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59586
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||csoeder at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64258
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64262
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64262
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64263
Bug ID: 64263
Summary: ICE where adddi3_aarch64 does not satisfy its
constraints after r217546
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64263
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64264
Bug ID: 64264
Summary: [5 Regression] s390 bootstrap fails in ada
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build, ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64264
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63399
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64263
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ktkachov at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64110
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64105
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
4.8 rejected this testcase, possibly because a feature is not implemented.
So not sure how this can count as a regression (regressions are things that
have a known-to-work version)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64163
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
Bug ID: 64265
Summary: r217669 broke tsan
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64204
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64205
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64240
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64240
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58623
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to bin.cheng from comment #3)
Patch sent at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02209.html
On latest trunk, the patch generates below assembly for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266
Bug ID: 64266
Summary: Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for
*.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ function.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64267
Bug ID: 64267
Summary: [DR 482] Qualified declarators in redeclarations
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63288
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57523
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55405
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53966
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64267
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It seems Clang 3.1 used to give a warning, but Clang 3.2 promoted it to an
error for GCC and EDG compatibility. They must have changed it again for DR482.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55459
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: doko at gcc dot gnu.org
seen with 20141211, r218620, failing to configure libgcc:
configure:3427: /home/doko/gcc/gcc-snapshot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61328
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14541
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #21)
Created attachment 34215 [details]
Link errors output for aarch64
Which one exactly? That is, what is the failing link output?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64269
Bug ID: 64269
Summary: ICE with -O3 enabled on Ubuntu 14.04
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64190
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #2)
Everywhere I guess.
I'm not getting this warning neither on x86_64-linux nor on i686-linux,
otherwise I would not have committed the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64269
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64269
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
But the testcase is invalid:
markus@x4 tmp % frama-c -val -val-signed-overflow-alarms -precise-unions
-obviously-terminates -no-val-show-progress -machdep x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14541
--- Comment #23 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #22)
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #21)
Created attachment 34215 [details]
Link errors output for aarch64
Which one exactly? That is,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61917
Andrey Tarasevich tarasevich at cs dot uni-saarland.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61917
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, I think that is the same bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63288
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
Started with r210492.
In that case the issue might be latent at least in 4_9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64099
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64263
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64270
Bug ID: 64270
Summary: packed fields
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64270
Damien Ruscoe damien.ruscoe at imgtec dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56212
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53293
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52587
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48164
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64270
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64262
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64*, x86*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64160
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton nickc at redhat dot com ---
Hi Ulrich,
if (reg_overlap_mentioned_p (operands[3], operands[7])
|| reg_overlap_mentioned_p (operands[3], operands[8]))
FAIL;
Thanks - that is indeed a better solution to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64099
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For r217826 vs. r217827 the assembly differences show a larger stack frame
while the optimized dump differences are net positive (more memory CSE happens
and loads get removed -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63854
David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44054
--- Comment #21 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: manu
Date: Thu Dec 11 15:13:33 2014
New Revision: 218627
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218627root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-12-11 Manuel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64269
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64268
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44054
--- Comment #22 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think the two remaining issues are:
1) Multiple locations (%C/%L) in diagnostics
2) Support !GCC$ diagnostic (pragmas)
For (2), I'm not planning to work on it since it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
Bug ID: 64271
Summary: Minimal patches to bootstrap on NetBSD
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
--- Comment #1 from Kai-Uwe Eckhardt kuehro at gmx dot de ---
Created attachment 34254
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34254action=edit
libstdc++-patch2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
--- Comment #2 from Kai-Uwe Eckhardt kuehro at gmx dot de ---
Created attachment 34255
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34255action=edit
libstdc++-patch3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
--- Comment #3 from Kai-Uwe Eckhardt kuehro at gmx dot de ---
Created attachment 34256
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34256action=edit
libcilkrts1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
--- Comment #5 from Kai-Uwe Eckhardt kuehro at gmx dot de ---
Created attachment 34258
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34258action=edit
libgfortran-weak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
--- Comment #4 from Kai-Uwe Eckhardt kuehro at gmx dot de ---
Created attachment 34257
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34257action=edit
libcilkrts-thread
cilk uses a non-posix function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
--- Comment #6 from Kai-Uwe Eckhardt kuehro at gmx dot de ---
Created attachment 34259
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34259action=edit
test_summary
All gfortran tests fail to run due to bug #39570
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42108
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48244
--- Comment #9 from Kai-Uwe Eckhardt kuehro at gmx dot de ---
I have submitted the necessary patches and test_result.log as #64271
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64272
Bug ID: 64272
Summary: useless called from here for inline failed
error/warning
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kai-Uwe Eckhardt from comment #0)
Created attachment 34253 [details]
libstdc++-patch1
Bootstrap of 5.0 fails on NetBSD, but with the patches in NetBSD's package
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kai-Uwe Eckhardt from comment #0)
Created attachment 34253 [details]
libstdc++-patch1
This introduces an ABI change.
Also, if _CTYPE_BL represents the blank
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
Please submit them by posting them to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org.
And please CC libstd...@gcc.gnu.org for the three libstdc++ patches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28662
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64190
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm not getting this warning neither on x86_64-linux nor on i686-linux,
otherwise I would not have committed the patch. Any information about
the platform you are getting the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54687
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
1 - 100 of 239 matches
Mail list logo
