https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111600
--- Comment #30 from Robin Dapp ---
On my machine it is not nearly as bad as insn-emit.cc. What dominates for me
with a GCC 13 host compiler is the already fixed insn-opinit problem.
How long does it take for you (maybe in % of the total
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111571
Noam Lewis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||noamlewis at google dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112339
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
algorithms: zlib
gcc version 14.0.0 20231102 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112347
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||muecker at gwdg dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112331
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|middle-end: Fail|Fail vectorization after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112347
--- Comment #2 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
A bit of debugging:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x007bfff6 in convert_for_assignment (location=location@entry=263654,
expr_loc=expr_loc@entry=0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112337
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112340
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112344
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112347
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112331
--- Comment #4 from JuzheZhong ---
I see.
It does vectorize it with -fno-vect-cost-model -fno-loop-interchange:
https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/8EEWcPro3
Codegen same as LLVM.
I am gonna revisit it in GCC-15 (GCC-14 stage 1 is closing soon).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112348
Bug ID: 112348
Summary: [C++23] defect in struct
hash>
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112347
--- Comment #3 from Martin Uecker ---
Thanks for reporting. I will fix this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112313
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112316
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112319
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112320
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112345
Bug ID: 112345
Summary: ice in mark_block_for_update
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112345
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112345
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
We have now:
# DEBUG p => D#1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112320
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 112345 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112345
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112320
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 112328 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112328
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112328
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Before the patch:
# DEBUG s => s_42
After:
# DEBUG s => D#1
And no reference to D#1 ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330
--- Comment #14 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #13)
> (In reply to chenglulu from comment #12)
> > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #11)
> > > I cherry-picked f87cf663af71e5d78c8d647fa48562102f3b0615 for Binutils 2.41
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112314
--- Comment #2 from Jose Dapena Paz ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> For the second one, I did start work on a patch that attempts to verify that
> the provided length is not more than __builtin_object_size. I can't remember
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112346
Bug ID: 112346
Summary: Wrong code produced with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112346
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111519
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112346
Shaohua Li changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||shaohua.li at inf dot ethz.ch
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112346
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112346
--- Comment #4 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
According to referenced stackoverflow discussion, the code is reduced from
https://github.com/vermaseren/form see
https://github.com/vermaseren/form/issues/461
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110342
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112344
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110338
Bug 110338 depends on bug 110342, which changed state.
Bug 110342 Summary: [C++26] P2361R6 - Unevaluated strings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110342
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330
--- Comment #10 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9)
> Xuerui informed me that non-LTO bootstrapping is broken too.
Well, this has nothing to do with whether to open lto or not, it is caused by
binutils inserting "nop"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112335
--- Comment #5 from Federico Kircheis ---
Ok, the described case would be something like
std::unique_ptr t;
__thread bool tt;
inline s::~s()
{
if (tt)
return;
tt = true;
t.reset(new s);
tt = false;
}
std::unique_ptr t2;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112344
Bug ID: 112344
Summary: [14 Regression] Wrong code at -O2 on
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112344
--- Comment #3 from Junwei Zeng ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Corrected testcase:
> ```
> int printf(const char *, ...);
> void a() {
> long b = 2036854775807;
> char c = 3;
> short d;
> int e = -2147483648, f = 0;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112335
--- Comment #2 from Federico Kircheis ---
> Well s::~s could touch the reference std::unique_ptr (ps1).
In both cases, s::~s is called only once.
Also during the move-assignment no user-provided-code is involved (except the
destruction of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112335
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Federico Kircheis from comment #2)
> > Well s::~s could touch the reference std::unique_ptr (ps1).
>
> In both cases, s::~s is called only once.
>
> Also during the move-assignment no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112344
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Corrected testcase:
```
int printf(const char *, ...);
void a() {
long b = 2036854775807;
char c = 3;
short d;
int e = -2147483648, f = 0;
for (; f < 7; f++)
while (e < 20) {
e += 2;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112344
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Did you copy the correct testcase? Because it looks like you just copied the
one from PR 112305 and the output is way different.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110342
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1c58566450f21cf1d9951284176ea6da0cc11fc9
commit r14-5071-g1c58566450f21cf1d9951284176ea6da0cc11fc9
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112335
--- Comment #3 from Federico Kircheis ---
Or maybe I've misunderstood your comment.
Do you have a specific scenario in mind where the two snippets would exhibit
different behaviors?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330
--- Comment #11 from Xi Ruoyao ---
I cherry-picked f87cf663af71e5d78c8d647fa48562102f3b0615 for Binutils 2.41 and
get some better error message:
t.s:98064: Error: Reloc overflow
t.s:101127: Error: Reloc overflow
t.s:101453: Error: Reloc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112331
--- Comment #2 from JuzheZhong ---
Reduced case:
#include
#define LEN 32000
#define ntimes 20
#define TYPE int
#define lll LEN
#define LEN2 256
#define ALIGNMENT 16
__attribute__ ((aligned(ALIGNMENT))) TYPE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330
--- Comment #12 from chenglulu ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #11)
> I cherry-picked f87cf663af71e5d78c8d647fa48562102f3b0615 for Binutils 2.41
> and get some better error message:
>
> t.s:98064: Error: Reloc overflow
> t.s:101127:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330
--- Comment #13 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #12)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #11)
> > I cherry-picked f87cf663af71e5d78c8d647fa48562102f3b0615 for Binutils 2.41
> > and get some better error message:
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109811
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
So I re-tested it with current mainline and clang 16/17
For mainline I get (megapixels per second, bigger is better):
13.39
13.38
13.42
clang 16:
20.06
20.06
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112347
--- Comment #8 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #6)
> Created attachment 56491 [details]
> patch
>
> Ok, let's try again...
The change fixes jemalloc and boehm-gc builds for me. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112337
--- Comment #3 from Stam Markianos-Wright ---
Created attachment 56493
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56493=edit
Full preprocessor reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112317
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112349
Bug ID: 112349
Summary: ranges::max makes unecessary copies
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112347
Martin Uecker changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56489|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112330
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|build |
Summary|[14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112347
Martin Uecker changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56490|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100457
Bug 100457 depends on bug 102383, which changed state.
Bug 102383 Summary: Missing optimization for PRE after enable O2 vectorization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102383
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112314
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6afa984f47e16e8bd958646d7407b74e61041f5d
commit r14-5085-g6afa984f47e16e8bd958646d7407b74e61041f5d
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112351
Bug ID: 112351
Summary: libstdc++ locale init doesn't handle __gthread_once
failure
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112347
--- Comment #4 from Martin Uecker ---
Created attachment 56489
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56489=edit
patch
This should fix it. I am running some tests and will commit this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112347
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112329
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112337
--- Comment #2 from Stam Markianos-Wright ---
Created attachment 56492
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56492=edit
creduced reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112351
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112317
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c71028c979d55f98b7727f9387bbe2f4ffe6de13
commit r14-5080-gc71028c979d55f98b7727f9387bbe2f4ffe6de13
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69549
--- Comment #12 from jwjagersma at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #11)
> Generally a patch should be sent to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org. See
> https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html. The patches attached to a Bugzilla
> ticket
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112334
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
This might be a side issue, but:
@defbuiltin{{void} __builtin_return (void *@var{result})}
This built-in function returns the value described by @var{result} from
the containing function. You should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112347
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Uecker :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f432a594fe6d3a0de1330ba69200d158e6248083
commit r14-5084-gf432a594fe6d3a0de1330ba69200d158e6248083
Author: Martin Uecker
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111311
--- Comment #9 from Vineet Gupta ---
(In reply to Patrick O'Neill from comment #8)
> Updated regression list using r14-5070-g4ea36076d66 on rv64gcv:
>
> Failure list from:
> https://github.com/patrick-rivos/gcc-postcommit-ci/issues/109
And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112314
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 56494
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56494=edit
Check [ptr,end) and [ptr,ptr+n) ranges with _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
With this change we could add:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112347
--- Comment #10 from David Binderman ---
When this patch was tested, did that include a build of libgfortran ?
I am getting some strange new warnings:
../../../trunk.year/libgfortran/io/async.c:265:24: warning: allocation of
insufficient size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102138
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112355
David Stone changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidfromonline at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97245
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ASSOCIATE intrinsic does|ASSOCIATED intrinsic does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112314
--- Comment #5 from Jose Dapena Paz ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jose Dapena Paz from comment #2)
> > In any case, the failing test is actually passing -1, my understanding is
> > that that one should always
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102138
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is the generic solution to what was done to fix PR 104639.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112314
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jose Dapena Paz from comment #2)
> In any case, the failing test is actually passing -1, my understanding is
> that that one should always assert no matter what we are passing as const
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109035
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
No spills on rv64 either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109740
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Goomenuk ---
Created attachment 56495
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56495=edit
Overloaded virtual testcase
Another relevant issue with gcc (GCC) 13.2.1 20231011 (Red Hat 13.2.1-4) and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112357
Bug ID: 112357
Summary: Documentation for vect-max-peeling-for-alignment
references -1 but -1 does not work
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112350
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
With optimization enabled and without -fsanitize=address we get:
: In function 'const int& foo1()':
:12:18: warning: using a dangling pointer to 'x' [-Wdangling-pointer=]
12 | return s.get();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112354
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112337
--- Comment #4 from Stam Markianos-Wright ---
Bisected to f55cdce3f8dd8503e080e35be59c5f5390f6d95e
Attached preprocessed source and a creduced-reproducer of it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106849
--- Comment #2 from David Stone ---
Looks like it works in 13.2 but fails in trunk.
13.2: https://godbolt.org/z/d54ToW7zW
trunk: https://godbolt.org/z/eej9d7ccM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112316
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-02
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112314
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jose Dapena Paz from comment #5)
> - The length is less than the possible pointer difference (checked with
> numeric_limits).
That seems too lenient to me, because for wchar_t, char16_t and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112353
Bug ID: 112353
Summary: asan-enabled, aarch64-gcc cross-compiled elf
executables fail ro run in qemu-user on x86
Product: gcc
Version: 12.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112335
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112355
Bug ID: 112355
Summary: Internal compiler error when exporting using
declaration of function template
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112354
Bug ID: 112354
Summary: mismatched types 'B' and 'B&' for generic
lambda noexcept-specifier referencing enclosing
function parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111311
--- Comment #8 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Updated regression list using r14-5070-g4ea36076d66 on rv64gcv:
=== gcc: Unexpected fails for rv64gcv lp64d medlow ===
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/memset-3.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110116
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] ICE |[12/13 Regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112347
--- Comment #11 from Martin Uecker ---
In this case this is by design because the size of an element should be second
argument to calloc. ("The calloc function allocates space for an array of nmemb
objects, each of whose size is size.")
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112355
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
