https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114323
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114347
--- Comment #2 from Paul Eggert ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I am not so sure that 257.0bf16 gets rounded to 256.
It should get rounded to 256, since 257 has no exact representation in __bf16
and 256 is the closest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114347
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, I am not so sure that 257.0bf16 gets rounded to 256.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114347
Bug ID: 114347
Summary: wrong constant folding when casting __bf16 to int
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81482
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81759
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-08-08 00:00:00 |2024-3-14
--- Comment #4 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81759
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Daniel Fruzynski from comment #2)
> Looks that __builtin_ffs does not check if input value is nonzero at all.
> Assembler code for following code also has unnecessary instructions:
>
> [code]
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114346
Bug ID: 114346
Summary: vectorizer generates the same IV twice
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114345
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114345
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83777
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-01-11 00:00:00 |2024-3-14
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114345
Bug ID: 114345
Summary: FRE missing knowledge of semantics of IFN loads
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70268
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joerg at netbsd dot org
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47047
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88823
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks to be fixed on the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88926
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-01-21 00:00:00 |2024-3-14
--- Comment #3 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89567
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #6 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43473
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29860
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111555
Fangrui Song changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i at maskray dot me
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114334
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110027
--- Comment #15 from Hongtao Liu ---
A patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647604.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114343
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114344
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note __alignof__ might say 1, but alignof vs what GCC knows the alignment of
the decl are 2 different things.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114344
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106119
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] Bogus |[12 Regression] Bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106238
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 regression] |[12 regression] Inline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106342
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114344
Bug ID: 114344
Summary: [arm/mips] __alignof__ report a member packed struct
as 1, while normal load/store instruction is used
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106757
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] |[12/13 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113430
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
I don't plan on pursuing it myself, leaving it to someone else, as I can't
reproduce on my main workstation and I don't want to faff w/ kernel config.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113430
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 57708
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57708=edit
0001-libsanitizer-fix-ASAN-with-aggressive-CONFIG_ARCH_MM.patch
Untested patch for 13.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106842
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] |[12 Regression] misleading
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106931
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] |[12 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107138
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 regression] |[12 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89323
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
This might work but I can't test it with x32:
```
diff --git a/libsanitizer/configure.tgt b/libsanitizer/configure.tgt
index 77a0e68222b..eb99edefbd3 100644
--- a/libsanitizer/configure.tgt
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113430
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Trivial program segfaults |[12/13 only] Trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113430
Dimitrij Mijoski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmjpp at hotmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114343
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.3
Assignee|dmalcolm at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114343
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
No there is a missing `}` in the line that was done for
testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/null-deref-pr108251-smp_fetch_ssl_fc_has_early-O2.c :
/* { dg-bogus "may result in an unaligned pointer value" "Fixed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114343
Bug ID: 114343
Summary: [13 regression] many erratic errors starting with
r13-8433-g1277f69b9b0206
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89323
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113934
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59863
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99091
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95943
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111555
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to YunQiang Su from comment #2)
> > For AArch64, clang supports `-mno-unaligned-access`, while gcc doesn't,
> > should we add it as an alias of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111555
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to YunQiang Su from comment #2)
> For AArch64, clang supports `-mno-unaligned-access`, while gcc doesn't,
> should we add it as an alias of -mstrict-align?
-mno-unaligned-access is the arm option
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111555
YunQiang Su changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||syq at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114342
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114342
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The first memcpy (rep movsq) is for:
```
int arr[]{-5, 10, 15, -5, 10, 15, -5, 10, 15, -5, 10, 15, -5, 10, 15, -5, 10,
15, -5, 10, 15,-5, 10, 15 -5, 10, 15, -5, 10, 15, -5, 10, 15, -5, 10, 15, -5,
10, 15,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114342
Bug ID: 114342
Summary: suboptimal codegen of vector::vector(range)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114341
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114341
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
x/(y&-y) is already recorded as PR 97738 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114341
Bug ID: 114341
Summary: Optimization opportunity with {mul,div} "(x & -x)" and
{<<,>>} "ctz(x)"
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #25 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Well, at least in theory SPEC isn't supposed to be changing the sources or
validation criteria on us. So while our copy may be old, I would expect it's
still the same as Filip's.
That doesn't resolve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82599
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114339
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 57707
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57707=edit
gcc14-pr114339.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114340
Bug ID: 114340
Summary: ` X / CST < X` -> `X > 0`
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114339
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114339
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Nice, further cleaned up:
/* PR target/114339 */
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -Wno-psabi" } */
/* { dg-additional-options "-mavx" { target avx_runtime } } */
typedef long V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114339
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspecting r13-3803-gfa271afb584230 which missed the border case of
INT_MAX/INT_MIN .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114339
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.1.0, 12.1.0, 12.3.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114339
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114339
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase:
```
#define vect128 __attribute__((vector_size(16)))
[[gnu::noinline]]
vect128 long f(vect128 long a)
{
return a <= (vect128 long){0, 9223372036854775807};
}
int main()
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114339
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly simplified/cleaned up testcase:
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -fno-vect-cost-model" } */
/* { dg-additional-options "-mavx" { target avx_runtime } } */
struct S { int a; long b; int c;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114339
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
This looks wrong:
```
;; mask_patt_17.15_55 = vect_cst__53 <= { 0, 9223372036854775807 };
(insn 21 20 22 (set (reg:V2DI 111)
(mem/u/c:V2DI (symbol_ref/u:DI ("*.LC1") [flags 0x2]) [0 S16 A128]))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #24 from Robin Dapp ---
I rebuilt GCC from scratch with your options but still have the same problem.
Could our sources differ? My SPEC version might not be the most recent but I'm
not aware that mcf changed at some point.
Just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114339
--- Comment #6 from Tamar Christina ---
vectorizer generates:
mask_patt_21.19_58 = vect_perm_even_49 >= vect_cst__57;
mask_patt_21.19_59 = vect_perm_even_55 >= vect_cst__57;
vexit_reduc_63 = mask_patt_21.19_58 | mask_patt_21.19_59;
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91861
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 94413 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94413
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91861
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109753
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 57706
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57706=edit
one approach
I tried just making implicit functions respect #pragma target, but that
regresses pr105306 due to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108866
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Pali Rohár from comment #5)
> There is one problem with it. I had to "hardcode" x86_64-w64-mingw32-windres
> name instead of just "windres". How to declare cross compile prefix? Because
> gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54454
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #4 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9058
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikulas at artax dot
karlin.mff.cu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108866
--- Comment #5 from Pali Rohár ---
Thank you for info, I read that blog post and based on those details I adjusted
spec file
$ x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc -dumpspecs > test.spec
by adding additional lines to test.spec:
.rc:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91672
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pascal_cuoq at hotmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109956
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91672
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the .size does match up with what GCC outputs though:
e.g. a1:
.size a1, 18
a1:
.xword 1
.hword 1
.hword 1
.zero 6
that is size of 18.
Basically gcc's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91672
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114288
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114294
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114339
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Summary|[14 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114294
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6dbf0d252f69ab2924256e6778ba7dc55d5b6915
commit r14-9483-g6dbf0d252f69ab2924256e6778ba7dc55d5b6915
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114339
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> Created attachment 57705 [details]
> larger.i
>
> Ah, wait, that might be a bad reduction. Let me attach a larger one, then I
> can give the original if needed too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114339
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 57705
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57705=edit
larger.i
Ah, wait, that might be a bad reduction. Let me attach a larger one, then I can
give the original if needed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114331
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah. So the cases where we should do it is when we are reversing a narrowing
cast, or also something for the other PRs Andrew mentioned, like when reversing
BIT_AND_EXPR (but maybe also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114339
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114339
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
The assert is at
https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor/-/blob/tor-0.4.8.10/src/feature/client/entrynodes.c#L2072
```
(gdb) p delays
$3 = {{
maximum = 21600,
primary_delay = 600,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114339
Bug ID: 114339
Summary: [14 regression] Tor miscompiled with -O2 -mavx
-fno-vect-cost-model
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114288
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by John David Anglin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:53fd0f5b1fd737a208c12909fa1188281cb370a3
commit r14-9482-g53fd0f5b1fd737a208c12909fa1188281cb370a3
Author: John David Anglin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114331
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> I really don't know how GORI etc. works.
> But, if when the switch handling determines that _1 (the switch controlling
> expression) has [irange] [111, 111]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113141
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I noticed the testcase in PR 90390 ICEs starting in GCC 13 and it seems
similar to the testcase in comment #0 here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86385
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Fixed for GCC 13+ by r13-2964-gbbdb5612f6661f2c64b0c0f1d2291cb59fde2b40 .
Or by r13-2963-g32b2eb59fb9049 .
Anyways both together are needed IIRC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86385
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114332
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Given that the x86-64 psABI says:
\item The value of the unused bits beyond the width of the
\texttt{_BitInt(N)} value but within the size of the
\texttt{_BitInt(N)} are unspecified when stored in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114294
--- Comment #2 from Gaius Mulley ---
Created attachment 57704
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57704=edit
Proposed fix
The proposed fix was to assign a type to the result constant created by HIGH.
The call to PutConst was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114331
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I really don't know how GORI etc. works.
But, if when the switch handling determines that _1 (the switch controlling
expression) has [irange] [111, 111] MASK 0x0 VALUE 0x6f (does it actually? i.e.
for a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114338
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I added this to the list of Canonicalization issues in gimple on the wiki:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GimpleCanonical
1 - 100 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
