https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8
--- Comment #13 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 46392
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46392=edit
stacked-qualified-types-3.s generated for cris-elf at r271469
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90315
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89782
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90553
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Author: hp
Date: Wed May 22 00:35:32 2019
New Revision: 271498
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271498=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/90553
* ira-lives.c (process_bb_node_lives):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90553
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Version|9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90568
--- Comment #1 from Peter Cordes ---
https://godbolt.org/z/hHCVTc
Forgot to mention, stack-protector also disables use of the red-zone for no
apparent reason, so that's another missed optimization. (Perhaps rarely
relevant; probably most
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
--- Comment #37 from Conrad S ---
Thanks for the workaround.
Will the patches be backported to gcc 8.x and 9.x ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90553
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Author: hp
Date: Wed May 22 00:43:23 2019
New Revision: 271499
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271499=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/90553
* gcc.dg/torture/pr90553.c: New test.
Added:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90568
Bug ID: 90568
Summary: stack protector should use cmp or sub, not xor, to
allow macro-fusion on x86
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa64-hp-hpux11.11,|cris-elf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
--- Comment #39 from Conrad S ---
> A better question might be: Are you going to fix your code?
Yes [1], but that's besides the point here. I can certainly fix my code, but
that leaves 99% of other software.
Backports to gcc 8.x and 9.x would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
--- Comment #38 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 04:38:40AM +, conradsand.arma at gmail dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
>
> --- Comment #37 from Conrad S ---
> Thanks for the workaround.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89782
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90551
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90551
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue May 21 06:55:07 2019
New Revision: 271454
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271454=gcc=rev
Log:
Move a test-case (PR testsuite/90551).
2019-05-21 Martin Liska
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90554
Bug ID: 90554
Summary: Missed vectorization with conditionally defined the
end of the loop
Product: gcc
Version: tree-ssa
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90500
--- Comment #18 from Martin Liška ---
On 5/20/19 11:58 PM, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90500
>
> --- Comment #17 from joseph at codesourcery dot com dot com> ---
> The copy attribute is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90554
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.bolvansky at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90555
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90555
Bug ID: 90555
Summary: IPA ICF should compare selected struct cfgloop members
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90543
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90500
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90552
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678
--- Comment #32 from Stefan Vigerske ---
Is there any hope this could actually be improved?
Now, 10 years later, the FENV_ACCESS pragma seems to be implemented, but the
problem here seems to persist.
I run into this with GCC 8.3.0 and code like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, looking at perf report:
$ head -n20 before.report.txt
# Overhead Command Shared ObjectSymbol
# ... ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90546
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90545
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90546
--- Comment #4 from Nick Krempel ---
Here's one way to turn it into a test case which fails to compile:
struct Foo {};
void test(const Foo&) {}
Foo f;
struct Bar {
template operator T&&() = delete;
};
template<> Bar::operator const Foo&&() {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Note that patch is also responsible for 521.wrf_r segfault with -Ofast
-march=native on a Zen machine (with ulimit -s == unlimited):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90557
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
--- Comment #13 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Tue May 21 15:24:30 2019
New Revision: 271470
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271470=gcc=rev
Log:
libfortran/90038: Document new wait=.false. implementation
2019-05-21 Janne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87338
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue May 21 15:42:00 2019
New Revision: 271472
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271472=gcc=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/87338
* dwarf2out.c (dwarf2out_inline_entry): Use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
--- Comment #12 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Tue May 21 15:17:44 2019
New Revision: 271468
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271468=gcc=rev
Log:
libfortran/90038: Document new wait=.false. implementation
2019-05-21 Janne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nsz at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68358
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #18 from Iain Sandoe ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678
--- Comment #33 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Stefan Vigerske from comment #32)
> Is there any hope this could actually be improved?
> Now, 10 years later, the FENV_ACCESS pragma seems to be implemented, but the
> problem here seems to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90309
Philipp Lucas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|mips|mips, arm
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #8 from Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90510
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 21 12:01:00 2019
New Revision: 271463
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271463=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-05-21 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/90510
* fold-const.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90545
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue May 21 13:36:04 2019
New Revision: 271464
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271464=gcc=rev
Log:
PR90545, gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-splats-floatdouble.c fails
I figure a tweak to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48562
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90557
Bug ID: 90557
Summary: Incorrect
std::filesystem::path::operator=(std::filesystem::path
const&) in gcc 9.1.0
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88335
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Not working on this anymore.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90556
Bug ID: 90556
Summary: [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wreturn-local-addr
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic, meta-bug
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90252
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue May 21 13:50:41 2019
New Revision: 271466
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271466=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90252 fix effective-target check for TBB
PR libstdc++/90252
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79966
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The run time on the 9 branch and trunk with/without -fipa-cp-clone is now as
slow as for the 8 branch with -fipa-cp-clone:
% gfc9 pr79966.f90 -O2 -fpeel-loops -finline-functions
% time ./a.out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90067
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90114
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90510
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88335
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46388|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90309
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90549
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> Agreed. Please go ahead abd create one.
>
> I'm working on a combined patch for this and PR 71924.
OK, I created bug 90556
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90545
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40989
Bug 40989 depends on bug 53063, which changed state.
Bug 53063 Summary: encode group options in the .opt files
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53063
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53063
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87856
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87648
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90450
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 46389
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46389=edit
patch
The attached should fix the issue. Martin?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68358
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #17 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889
--- Comment #17 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #16)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14)
> > David: Can the bug be marked as resolved?
>
> Much of this is implemented for gcc 9.
>
> I want to keep this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87338
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63545
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
I can't help much as I don't have a ia64 system.
I don't think the issue in this PR relates directly to hpux. Rather, the
bootstrap compiler has
miscompiled the stage1 compiler.
The 4.9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67958
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Tue May 21 16:33:48 2019
New Revision: 271475
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271475=gcc=rev
Log:
darwin, testsuite - fix PR 67958
These tests require specific scan-asms in some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90558
Bug ID: 90558
Summary: '_Atomic does not name a type' error resurfaces when
building with old headers on OSX Mojave
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||townsend at astro dot wisc.edu
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90558
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90561
Bug ID: 90561
Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at
gimplify.c:2747
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90561
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90560
Bug ID: 90560
Summary: ICE in visit, at d/dmd/dcast.c:1872
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90558
--- Comment #2 from Rich Townsend ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Dup.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 89864 ***
Are you sure? The discussion in 89864 indicates that the patch to fix this bug
should be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90558
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88099
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50974
--- Comment #6 from G. Steinmetz ---
*** Bug 88099 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90558
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #3)
> (In reply to Rich Townsend from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > > Dup.
> > >
> > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63891
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Tue May 21 16:24:25 2019
New Revision: 271474
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271474=gcc=rev
Log:
darwin, testsuite - fix PR 63891.
This is a testcase failing because one part of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90559
Bug ID: 90559
Summary: Out of memory because of negative length
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90562
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90309
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> Seems we need to add a warning sentinel.
...but first it'd be nice to find out *why* we're shifting by -4 and how that
can be.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90559
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
This was fixed in upstream dmd, I'll backport the patch for 9.2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90547
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue May 21 17:57:11 2019
New Revision: 271479
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271479=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/90547
* config/i386/i386.md (anddi_1 to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90558
--- Comment #6 from Rich Townsend ---
(In reply to Rich Townsend from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > Dup.
> >
> > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 89864 ***
>
> Are you sure? The discussion in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90562
Bug ID: 90562
Summary: thread_local variables in inline functions have
different addresses across shared libraries
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90562
--- Comment #1 from Tudor Bosman ---
Note that the behavior is correct (the thread local variable has the same
address) with -O0, but incorrect with -O1 or above.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90562
--- Comment #3 from Tudor Bosman ---
The bug also exists in gcc 8.3.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90560
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
Reproducible in upstream dmd, bug raised here:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19890
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90562
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90563
Bug ID: 90563
Summary: Out of bounds error when compiling with -Wextra
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85400
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tudorb at gmail dot com
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90067
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90114
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90558
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Rich Townsend from comment #0)
> I'm running into a bug building on OSX Mojave, which seems to be tied into
> the problems with _Atomic in Apple's system headers. The error itself is:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79885
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85400
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889
--- Comment #18 from Martin Liška ---
@David: Can we close this now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90563
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90237
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@tobias-neumann.eu
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90237
--- Comment #5 from Tobias ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #4)
> *** Bug 90563 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Why does this *warning* actually cause an error and abort the compilation? This
is what I consider
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90566
Bug ID: 90566
Summary: Support demangling with underscore-prefixed string
after mangled name
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
