https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19705
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2006-03-05 03:12:14 |2016-1-27
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69520
--- Comment #1 from Harald Anlauf ---
The patch in comment #0 regtests ok on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
Possible ChangeLog entry:
2016-01-27 ...
PR fortran/69520
* options.c: Enhance -fcheck by reversal of specifications.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68659
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #12)
> At revision 232901, this testcase still ICEs on i686 (or x86_64 with -m32)
> on Fedora 23:
>
> Running target unix/-m32
> FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/id-pr45230-1.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
--- Comment #15 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Wed Jan 27 22:08:02 2016
New Revision: 232905
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232905=gcc=rev
Log:
PR rtl-opt/69447
* lra-remat.c (subreg_regs): New.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5372
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The PowerPC EABI document itself does not say anything about __eabi
or process startup (it even says there are no requirements).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68659
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-*-*, arm*-*-* |powerpc-*-*, arm*-*-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69520
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
--- Comment #17 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #16)
> Fixed.
This patch is not going to the 5-branch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69484
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Jan 27 22:32:52 2016
New Revision: 232906
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232906=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-01-27 Janus Weil
PR fortran/69484
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18900
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68662
--- Comment #10 from Alan Modra ---
I guess rs6000 needs to implement targetm.override_options_after_change() if
we're to keep flag_pic and TARGET_RELOCATABLE consistent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18154
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-*-* |powerpc*-*-*
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24208
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Thu Jan 28 01:06:29 2016
New Revision: 232912
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232912=gcc=rev
Log:
Low-hanging C++-lexer speedup (PR c++/24208)
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22238
--- Comment #22 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #20)
[...]
> I maintain my opinion that any user-facing diagnostic using %qE is
> potentially broken.
Thanks; I'm inclined to agree.
Notes to self:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53341
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
With -std=c++0x included (until a few days ago on trunk),
which is what caused the difference.
I don't see _ZdlPv since 4.8.0 though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68662
--- Comment #9 from Alan Modra ---
For the testcase in comment #7, global_options are inconsistent (*) and wrong
when compiling foo. I see flag_pic == 2 there??
(*) In particular, TARGET_RELOCATABLE and flag_pic don't agree. See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17958
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2007-07-02 21:30:35 |2016-1-27
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69497
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69521
Loïc Yhuel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||loic.yhuel at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69523
Bug ID: 69523
Summary: -Wliteral-suffix should not warn within namespace std
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69523
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
How about declaring those headers as system headers by using -isystem instead
of using -I :)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65010
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19746
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2005-05-09 01:18:53 |2016-1-27
CC|
per
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/home/absozero/trunk/root-gcc
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160127 (experimental) [trunk revision 232874] (GCC)
$ time gcc-trunk abc1.c
^C
real21m50
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23450
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carrot at google dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65010
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Last reconfirmed|2015-03-21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69523
--- Comment #2 from Eric Fiselier ---
@Andrew I'm a libc++ developer and I really like using compiler warnings when
developing and testing libc++. Using -isystem prevents this entirely. Normally
they are system headers but this is explicitly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23450
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2007-07-01 00:47:09 |2016-1-27
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69461
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 37498
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37498=edit
Patch I'm testing to fix the bug
LRA wants harder than reload to avoid creating a stack slot to satisfy insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22271
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18154
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21913
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18900
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68654
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, afomin.mailbox at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68654
>
> --- Comment #21 from Alexander Fomin ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69490
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Emrich ---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Am 26.01.2016 um 16:08 schrieb Rainer Emrich:
> Am 26.01.2016 um 15:50 schrieb dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org:
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69336
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Should be fixed with
2016-01-25 Richard Biener
PR testsuite/69380
* g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr69336.C: Restrict to x86_64 and i?86.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69466
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 37486
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37486=edit
Patch I'm testing to fix the problem
The problem occurs because we call set_current_def for phi nodes after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69490
Rainer Emrich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68446
Rainer Emrich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69317
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65686
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68542
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On January 27, 2016 5:03:18 PM GMT+01:00, "mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68542
>
>Marek Polacek changed:
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69509
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69516
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69516
Bug ID: 69516
Summary: [5/6 regression] infinite recursion on a VLA with
excess initializer elements in constexpr function
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65931
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69317
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Jan 27 15:44:07 2016
New Revision: 232881
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232881=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/69317 - [6 regression] wrong ABI version in -Wabi warnings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
--- Comment #12 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #10)
> This patch also seems to fix the wrong code in PR 69124
Good to know -- I wasn't able to reproduce that failure myself.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69488
--- Comment #6 from Rainer Emrich ---
I tested the new version of the proposed patch. Now the tests all pass on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and x86_64-w64-mingw32.
Eric, please submit to mainline.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68380
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68380
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Jan 27 16:54:48 2016
New Revision: 232884
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232884=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-01-27 Thomas Klausner
PR target/68380
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69488
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69466
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
I am testing that patch now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69495
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #5)
> (In reply to janus from comment #4)
> > Is there a reason for this behavior?
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#wnowarning
I see. So this is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69484
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69379
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66487
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #13)
> Author: hubicka
> Date: Wed Jan 13 23:47:45 2016
> New Revision: 232356
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232356=gcc=rev
> Log:
>
> PR ipa/66487
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49627
dr.robert.kosik at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dr.robert.kosik at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66797
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66487
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69379
--- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jan 27 16:46:40 2016
New Revision: 232882
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232882=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/69379
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_constant_expression):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69488
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Jan 27 16:53:27 2016
New Revision: 232883
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232883=gcc=rev
Log:
PR ada/69488
* gnat.dg/sso/*.adb: Robustify dg-output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68514
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68542
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69488
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
--- Comment #13 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> Without knowing the lra-remat code at all, I just wonder if subreg_regs
> needs to be one per the whole function, rather than say per extended basic
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69488
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Emrich ---
Created attachment 37491
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37491=edit
proposed patch, new version
* gnat.dg/sso/*.adb: Robustify dg-output directives.
Changed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69517
Bug ID: 69517
Summary: [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer
elements
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69436
--- Comment #6 from vmorgulys at gmail dot com ---
Hello Jonathan,
I have another similar issue with auto and deleted contructrors
("=delete"). They are not detected at compile time.
Do you think it is related to what you mention in your
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69524
Bug ID: 69524
Summary: [ICE] [F2008] Compiler segfaults on simple testcase @
-O0
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37499|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37495|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69267
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3920
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66094
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67824
--- Comment #3 from Erich Keane ---
Don't know if it is a result of the red-hat packaging, or the .1 release, but
the 3.7.1 release from here: http://llvm.org/releases/download.html
seems to no longer crash.(In reply to Erich Keane from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5372
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2004-01-02 06:15:10 |2016-1-27
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10778
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67824
--- Comment #2 from Erich Keane ---
Don't know if it is a result of the red-hat packaging, or the .1 release, but
the 3.7.1 release from here: http://llvm.org/releases/download.html
seems to no longer crash.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69497
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69514
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
ty: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 37493
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37493=edit
C source code
gcc trunk, dated 2016012
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
--- Comment #14 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> > Without knowing the lra-remat code at all, I just wonder if subreg_regs
> > needs to be one per the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69509
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69512
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jan 27 17:08:00 2016
New Revision: 232885
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232885=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-01-27 Uros Bizjak
PR target/69512
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69267
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Jan 27 17:17:23 2016
New Revision: 232887
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232887=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-01-15 Ryan Burn
PR cilkplus/69267
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69479
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50045
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69518
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15767
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2004-06-01 22:33:42 |2016-1-27
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68062
--- Comment #15 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jan 27 19:13:42 2016
New Revision: 232894
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232894=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/68062
* c-typeck.c (build_binary_op) [EQ_EXPR, GE_EXPR]:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22238
--- Comment #21 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #19)
> /tmp/test2.cc:9:24: error: return-statement with a value, in function
> returning 'void' [-fpermissive]
> return P->bar() + *P;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16456
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68398
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Jan 27 19:19:47 2016
New Revision: 232897
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232897=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/68398
* params.def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68398
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22238
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
1 - 100 of 233 matches
Mail list logo