https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100084
康桓瑋 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hewillk at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from 康桓瑋
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92060
--- Comment #3 from Hubert Tong ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #2)
> Hmm, I think treating A and Q as equivalent here is allowed by CWG 1286.
Looks like it; CWG 1286 as not been adopted by the committee though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99910
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Appears to be related to (PR 100052 and) PR 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100052
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100088
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100088
Bug ID: 100088
Summary: ymm store split into two xmm stores
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47386
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2011-01-21 11:12:28 |2021-4-14
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97128
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99700
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|uninitialized variable |[10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99700
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100083
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63797
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 08:43:50PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63797
>
> --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Steve, can you give an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100079
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100087
Bug ID: 100087
Summary: Redundant extend with compare against zero for
baseline Armv8-M
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63797
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Steve, can you give an example for the procedure pointer case you mentioned?
I played a bit, but the only valid code that I can think of did not produce
a reference to sqrt in such a way that it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100086
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-14
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100086
Bug ID: 100086
Summary: spurious -Wnonnull with __builtin_expect
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99797
Martin Uecker changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99963
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99929
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a87d3f964df31d4fbceb822c6d293e85c117d992
commit r11-8184-ga87d3f964df31d4fbceb822c6d293e85c117d992
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100078
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100078
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:00a2774923c1dc5666cd26bb9b8c37b1b7dd689d
commit r11-8182-g00a2774923c1dc5666cd26bb9b8c37b1b7dd689d
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93085
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:00a2774923c1dc5666cd26bb9b8c37b1b7dd689d
commit r11-8182-g00a2774923c1dc5666cd26bb9b8c37b1b7dd689d
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100040
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100029
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100027
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
Steven Munroe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||munroesj at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100085
Bug ID: 100085
Summary: Bad code for union transfer from __float128 to vector
types
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100025
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100084
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100084
--- Comment #1 from Barry Revzin ---
Also gcc accepts:
namespace A { enum A {}; };
using namespace A;
using enum A::A;
Which, apparently, this one should actually be ambiguous.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100084
Bug ID: 100084
Summary: using enum lookup isn't type-only
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100078
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93314
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 50594
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50594=edit
patch for stage 1
A more general, but also more risky, fix for next stage 1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93314
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression] Invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93314
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9b53edc796d284b6adec7f2996772dbddf4c341e
commit r11-8181-g9b53edc796d284b6adec7f2996772dbddf4c341e
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100070
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100066
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f99f64f69db49ce6343d79a39eab28dcc6b91865
commit r11-8180-gf99f64f69db49ce6343d79a39eab28dcc6b91865
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88492
--- Comment #7 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to ptomsich from comment #6)
> With the current master, the test case generates (with -mcpu=neoverse-n1):
> which contrasts with LLVM13 (with -mcpu=neoverse-n1):
>
> test_slp:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100079
--- Comment #3 from Lukas Böger ---
I believe it should be valid. The revision which turns the snippet from
rejection into an ICE makes sense, as this is about class-type instances as
non-type template parameters.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100073
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100073
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 regression] test case |missing warning on an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100073
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:785209fc464ee3efec2b2a8e8244b7292c251ad8
commit r11-8179-g785209fc464ee3efec2b2a8e8244b7292c251ad8
Author: Martin Sebor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100070
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Note to self/Patrick:
Measure whether it helps to specialize transform_view's iterator so that when
_Base_iter is __normal_iterator we unwrap it and store a raw pointer.
Also, I suspect the indirections
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99944
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88492
ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100071
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100073
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100071
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for the fix. Any idea why it failed in the weird way it did? I ran it
dozens of times and it only failed and then every time when the 64 bit test run
was done a second time?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99008
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97112
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83476
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99963
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99246
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a065e0bb092a010664777394530ab1a52bb5293b
commit r11-8178-ga065e0bb092a010664777394530ab1a52bb5293b
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99180
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94691
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100083
Bug ID: 100083
Summary: combining `-O3` and `-fPIC` causes "used
uninitialized" error
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99180
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pacoarjonilla at yahoo dot es
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94560
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100075
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-14
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99885
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.0.1 20210414 (experimental) [master revision
006783f4b16:29da9c11552:0589be0c59767cf4cbb0ef0e7d918cf6aa3d606c] (GCC)
[529] %
[529] % gcctk -O2 -S -o O2.s small.c
[530] % gcctk -O3 -S -o O3.s small.c
[531] %
[531] % wc O2.s O3.s
101 229 1393 O2.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100081
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
I see the following in perf top:
9.84% cc1plus[.] wide_int_to_tree_1
6.59% cc1plus[.] irange::varying_p
6.13% cc1plus[.] bitmap_bit_p
4.35% cc1plus[.]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100081
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.3.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100081
Bug ID: 100081
Summary: [11 Regression] Compile time hog in irange since
r11-4135-ge864d395b4e862ce
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92060
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.0.1 20210414 (experimental) [master revision
006783f4b16:29da9c11552:0589be0c59767cf4cbb0ef0e7d918cf6aa3d606c] (GCC)
[605] %
[605] % gcctk -O2 -S -o O2.s small.c
[606] % gcctk -O3 -S -o O3.s small.c
[607] %
[607] % wc O2.s O3.s
68 147 999 O2.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99885
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100077
--- Comment #2 from Michael Matz ---
Yeah, to solve this fully requires representing the parameter passing in a
better
way, one that can be (a) used on the gimple side (where the code is already
generated assuming the vec3a params go into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100079
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'd say it is valid rather than invalid, it is accepted with
// using SomeTypeAlias = int;
and clang++ on godbolt accepts it in c++20 mode too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100079
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Non-type template |[9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96339
Tejas Belagod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||belagod at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99850
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50592
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50592=edit
gcc11-pr99850.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99914
--- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ---
Weak declarations (both functions and variables) were found not to be working
at all on MinGW targets. The only way that there desired behaviour can be
achieved there then is to mark *all* declarations with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83476
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2ccc05a5141506fde0e20dec702c717fd67bf6ee
commit r11-8175-g2ccc05a5141506fde0e20dec702c717fd67bf6ee
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99885
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2ccc05a5141506fde0e20dec702c717fd67bf6ee
commit r11-8175-g2ccc05a5141506fde0e20dec702c717fd67bf6ee
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100079
Bug ID: 100079
Summary: Non-type template parameter, itself a nested template,
rejected with internal error
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100078
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100078
Bug ID: 100078
Summary: [11 Regression] Rejected code since
r11-8137-g84081e2c6bd43a67
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99914
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5b63eb17d863ac080cf3c7df08233054b09d3747
commit r11-8173-g5b63eb17d863ac080cf3c7df08233054b09d3747
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100077
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-14
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99833
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Created attachment 50591 [details]
> gcc11-pr99833.patch
>
> Untested fix. This seems to work for me...
Ah, I hadn't considered that the problem might be in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98529
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2021-04-09 00:00:00 |2021-4-14
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100070
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm not sure we should make std::__iterator_category just return
std::__detail::__iter_concept, because that has a fallback of
random_access_iterator_tag and I keep forgetting why that is. And I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100024
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99833
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50591
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50591=edit
gcc11-pr99833.patch
Untested fix. This seems to work for me...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100070
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If there is code that cares, we could always add std::__cpp17_iterator_category
for the cases where we really care about the traditional category (or where
we're forwarding the result of *i to user code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100070
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Barry suggested out-of-band that we could change std::__iterator_category to
determine the result based on the C++20 iterator concepts. That looks
promising.
std::distance dispatches on the result of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100018
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99833
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And that ICEs since r7-4511-g70f40fea6a317d7be82d1f02defb59381c7752e7 when
structured binding support has been added, first with
internal compiler error: in is_normal_capture_proxy, at cp/lambda.c:271
then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100077
Bug ID: 100077
Summary: x86: by-value floating point array in struct - xmm
regs spilling to stack
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100067
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100067
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d1e4368ddb76a92c44f824c8e4ca1a3de8149342
commit r11-8168-gd1e4368ddb76a92c44f824c8e4ca1a3de8149342
Author: Richard Earnshaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82283
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Robert Dumitru from comment #10)
> I think https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99081 is also relating
> to this.
A similar issue, but I think the code for parsing these initializes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99833
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And hopefully valid variant thereof:
struct S { int a, b; };
template
void
foo ()
{
[](auto d) { if constexpr (auto [a, b]{d}; sizeof (a) > 0) a++; } (S{});
}
template void foo ();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99081
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-14
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99833
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82283
Robert Dumitru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||robert.dumitru@cyberthorstu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100071
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:287be7f7a587cb08eb88ecee39ff5556a22976d2
commit r11-8167-g287be7f7a587cb08eb88ecee39ff5556a22976d2
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100071
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
