https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64215
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=63888
--- Comment #13 from Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #12)
But for this example in C the globals will not get instrumented, unless
-fno-common is given.
BTW I think everyone already pairs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64218
Bug ID: 64218
Summary: ICE during compilation with -fno-rtti -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64218
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64218
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I meant PR61558.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64216
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64219
Bug ID: 64219
Summary: Rename libgcj-5.0.pc to libgcj-5.pc
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64218
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14541
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64216
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41437
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yyc1992 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14541
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14541
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14541
--- Comment #21 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34215
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34215action=edit
Link errors output for aarch64
Which one exactly? That is, what is the failing link output?
All
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64220
Bug ID: 64220
Summary: gcc preprocessor defines outside of the reserved
namespace: unix linux AVR
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64197
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64192
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It appears that devirt changes
_4 = this_1(D)-D.2680;
OBJ_TYPE_REF(_3;(struct top)_4-0) (_4);
into
_4 = this_1(D)-D.2680;
__builtin_unreachable (_4);
but __builtin_unreachable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
And if it is:
diff --git a/gcc/sanopt.c b/gcc/sanopt.c
index ce9fbcf..77b88f7 100644
--- a/gcc/sanopt.c
+++ b/gcc/sanopt.c
@@ -646,20 +646,21 @@ pass_sanopt::execute (function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think it is a gimple-fold/ipa-devirt etc. bug.
__builtin_unreachable doesn't have any arguments, so pretending it has is
broken and also a missed optimization, in the IL we think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64221
Bug ID: 64221
Summary: contrib/compare_tests confused by
c-c++-common/ubsan/shift-5.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org|jamborm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64222
Bug ID: 64222
Summary: [5 Regression] error: ‘__FUNCTION__’ was not declared
in this scope
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64223
Bug ID: 64223
Summary: same warning repeated twice with same line number
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63594
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64094
--- Comment #5 from Jon Grant jg at jguk dot org ---
Hi Manu
I like your open_strerror() propopsal. Is this how Bintuils has done it?
Note: I realise this problem stems from ENOENT being used by both opendir() and
open(). I think you only need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64220
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=64094
--- Comment #6 from Jon Grant jg at jguk dot org ---
Two more tests where I try to pass directories to GCC.
(1)
$ mkdir testdir
$ gcc -Wall -Werror -o main testdir
testdir: file not recognized: Is a directory
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64094
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
In order to be precise trying to open doesnotexist/foo.c should report no such
directory.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56203
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz.ch ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #4)
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64222
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64223
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64222
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64220
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64219
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64218
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64215
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64214
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64213
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64190
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62007
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think the message is correct, or at least the case is highly unclear, the
OpenMP 4.0 standard has various unclear corner cases.
The thing is, the loop iterator is predetermined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64212
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
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=64208
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64205
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64204
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=64200
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64199
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64193
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64208
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
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=64191
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It also seems that DCE cannot remove the empty loop with the clobber, because
it's marked useful and thus its SSA requirements are marked useful (we
explicitely exclude the VDEF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
I thought we've added handling of gimple_clobber_p in 4.9 -
vect_determine_vectorization_factor / vect_analyze_loop_operations /
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, I'm afraid it is a bad idea, you'll get rid of too many clobbers and they
are really desirable, both for DSE, expansion etc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
It also seems that DCE cannot remove the empty loop with the clobber, because
it's marked useful and thus its SSA requirements are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The tree-vect-stmts.c change is fine of course. As for loops not being DCEd if
they have only clobbers in them that preclude that, isn't that optimized away
by RTL optimizers anyway?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64223
Harald van Dijk harald at gigawatt dot nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64191
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
It also seems that DCE cannot remove the empty loop with the clobber,
because
it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64224
Bug ID: 64224
Summary: [ARM] -mapcs -marm uses deprecated forms (as of
ARMv7-A) of LDM in epilogues
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64224
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
Bug ID: 64225
Summary: -funsafe-math-optimizations generates call to pow
where multiply instruction would do
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #1 from Bernard Ogden bernie.ogden at linaro dot org ---
Created attachment 34218
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34218action=edit
-v output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Add -fno-math-errno removes the call to pow. We've seen similar issues before
with other math builtins. The problem is that the midend/frontend generates the
pow call without remembering that by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #5 from jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've seen similar behavior on an HPC benchmark I was looking at.
The problem here is the interaction between fold-const.c, other passes, and
-fmath-errno.
Take this testcase:
void
foo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
fold-const.c has a comment in the relevant case that says:
/* Canonicalize x*x as pow(x,2.0), which is expanded as x*x. */
So we should look at why is it not being expanded as such unless
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42734
--- Comment #47 from Damien Buhl (daminetreg) damien.buhl at lecbna dot org
---
So our GCC with the problem has been configured and built by yocto-poky the
following way :
```
Using built-in specs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #6)
fold-const.c has a comment in the relevant case that says:
/* Canonicalize x*x as pow(x,2.0), which is expanded as x*x. */
I think this comment is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64226
Bug ID: 64226
Summary: Secondary reload incorrect TOC address
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64226
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64206
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34219
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34219action=edit
Work-in-progress patch to fix this
The attached patch implements the ideas we talked
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64226
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Uli mentioned in private email:
I think the piece of code quoted above from rs6000_secondary_reload_inner
is wrong; it should not call create_TOC_reference unconditionally.
Other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59491
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
Looks useful.
Lots of time has elapsed, but I checked a recent Linux kernel and it would find
about three bugs.
I also checked about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64227
Bug ID: 64227
Summary: Forwarding an argument of a function template to a
generic lambda causes a compiler crash
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64223
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, harald at gigawatt dot nl wrote:
I do not know if the problem is in the headers (that they should not be
specifying the format
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64227
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=64227
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64085
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
Expanding x * x (or any such multiplication) to a call to pow is
inherently dubious because the semantics of multiplication never include
clobbering errno,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63989
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34220
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34220action=edit
gcc5-pr63989-wip1.patch
So, for start, this untested patch deals with #c1 f1 case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63787
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=61754
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64194
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64178
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64169
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64171
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62212
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64198
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Mon Dec 8 18:05:30 2014
New Revision: 218485
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218485root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR go/64198
compiler: Don't crash on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60372
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64095
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64073
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63996
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61971
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64049
--- Comment #13 from Bernd Edlinger edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Mon Dec 8 18:30:15 2014
New Revision: 218487
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218487root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-12-08 Bernd Edlinger
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63809
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64223
--- Comment #4 from Harald van Dijk harald at gigawatt dot nl ---
Ah, GCC does not treat format(printf) and format(__printf__) as equivalent, and
the built-in declaration uses format(printf). With custom functions, two
warnings can also be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61022
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64228
Bug ID: 64228
Summary: compile error not accurate expected ; before string
constant
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
