https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101906
Bug ID: 101906
Summary: Constant evaluation failure in concepts
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85551
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77287
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|target
--- Comment #5 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71022
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101905
Bug ID: 101905
Summary: Missed debug information for global register variable
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
From: Andrew Pinski
Even though this does not change the generated code,
it does improve the initial RTL generation.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree-ssa-math-opts.c (match_arith_overflow):
Add range and nonzero bits information to
the new overflow ssa name. Also fold
the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101756
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note with my patch for PR 101805, we are able to get the scalar version of this
function to:
xorl%eax, %eax
testl %edx, %edx
sete%al
orl %esi, %eax
ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101871
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
With this testcase,
program tao_program
implicit none
integer i
character(80) abc(9)
character(1) n
n = 'H'
abc = [character(80) :: &
& 'a'//n, 'ab', 'abc', 'd', 'def',
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101805
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
From: Andrew Pinski
I noticed this while Richard B. fixing PR101756.
Basically min of two bools is the same as doing an "and"
and max of two bools is doing an "ior".
gcc/ChangeLog:
* match.pd: Add min/max patterns for bool types.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
*
From: Andrew Pinski
While working on some more boolean optimizations, I noticed
that there are places which does SSA_NAME@0 and then look
at then either use get_nonzero_bits or ssa_name_has_boolean_range
to see if the ssa name had a boolean range. This cleans this
up slightly by have a simple
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 04:33:26PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> There is a song from Sesame Street: "Which of these is not like the
> others?" altivec.md seems like an outlier. crypto.md and vsx.md also
> seem unusual.
>
> We have
>
> register_operand
> gpc_reg_operand
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61119
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99921
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Michael Meissner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:58eec9908c01e2f5a6eb9cd76bbf037bbe2cf5e6
commit r12-2905-g58eec9908c01e2f5a6eb9cd76bbf037bbe2cf5e6
Author: Michael Meissner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58920
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
maybe have the front-end emit (if -fdelete-null-pointer-checks is on),
if (ref == NULL) __builtin_unreachable();
This might most cases, how many I don't know.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47825
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18180
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is all fixed with the patch for PR 71876.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51886
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77399
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88314
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79249
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77935
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57846
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66615
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33257
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46551
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61504
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74744
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79917
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45068
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101534
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Summary|ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64122
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80540
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
Snapshot gcc-10-20210813 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20210813/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 10 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79015
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100117
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
---
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 09:52:53 -0700
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 12:05 AM Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 16:16:04 -0700
> > Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 3:34 PM Sergei Trofimovich via Gcc-patches
> > > wrote:
> > > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79124
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||robert.suchanek at imgtec dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65877
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79786
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the bug was introduced at r5-869.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79786
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |c++
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97208
Giulio Benetti changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||giulio.benetti@benettiengin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68010
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|internal compiler error: in |ICE with -g and using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61925
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59683
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69318
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
I really doubt there is anything we can do about this one really, In the
previous version of the ABI (<=9), regparm and/or stdcall were not mangled for
the function type. So obviously we would get two
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59927
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51518
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60900
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to fail|4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47018
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|4.7.1 |
Resolution|---
Hi Ian,
> Sorry about that. I've committed this patch.
thanks.
unfortunately, things are considerably worse: syscall.lo fails to build
and go1 even ICEs:
/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/libgo/go/syscall/libcall_posix_utimesnano.go:13:1:
error: redefinition of ‘UtimesNano’
13 | func
Hi!
On 2021-08-12T22:48:33+0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> The patch also contains something I should have done much earlier,
... and as its own commit... ;-|
> for clauses that accept some integral expression where we only care
> about the value, forces during gimplification
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46322
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-13
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 4:24 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 02:07:25PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 12:08 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:15:21AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 13,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90443
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-13
Summary|-flto=n
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 02:07:25PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 12:08 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:15:21AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 10:49 AM Segher Boessenkool
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101904
Bug ID: 101904
Summary: Wrong result of decltype during instantiation of
std::result_of
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53286
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101903
Bug ID: 101903
Summary: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with invalid constexpr
constructor in template class
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101524
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101620
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101686
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101764
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101817
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101897
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
On 8/13/21 8:58 PM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
Hi,
compile the following naive implementation of nextafter() for AMD64:
JFTR: ignore the aliasing casts, they don't matter here!
$ cat repro.c
double nextafter(double from, double to)
{
if (to != to)
return to;// to is NAN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94679
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect -fkeep-inline-functions is not really usable any more with C++ code
like this.
To make sure fooable constraint is valid, we need to instantiate
"IMove::operator()" which we don't know if it is
Hi,
compile the following naive implementation of nextafter() for AMD64:
JFTR: ignore the aliasing casts, they don't matter here!
$ cat repro.c
double nextafter(double from, double to)
{
if (to != to)
return to;// to is NAN
if (from != from)
return from; //
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67693
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
On 13.08.21 16:37, Tobias Burnus wrote:
When converting the C/C++ runtime testcase to Fortran, I did run into
a bug:
https://gcc.gnu.org/PR101899 (see PR or testcase; related to 'omp
taskloop'.)
I am any more sure whether it is a bug or not or what is the bug (see
PR) – however, for this patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67693
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||7.5.0
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95389
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101899
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
>From the gimple dump:
#pragma omp taskloop firstprivate(D.3968) private(i) firstprivate(offset.2) \
firstprivate(stride.1) firstprivate(a.0)
and omplower shows:
.omp_data_o.8.a.0
From: Andrew Pinski
So the problem here is there is code in the C++ front-end not to add a
break statement (to the IR) if the previous block does not fall through.
The problem is the code which does the check to see if the block
may fallthrough does not check a CLEANUP_STMT; it assumes it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 101734, which changed state.
Bug 101734 Summary: missing warning reading from a write-only object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101734
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101734
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101734
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb85d6eb6c392e829d1ee5b8a2e2b81c53c9840f
commit r12-2903-gfb85d6eb6c392e829d1ee5b8a2e2b81c53c9840f
Author: Martin Sebor
Date:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 12:08 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:15:21AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 10:49 AM Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 12:14:14AM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > > > I noticed that
Ping.
On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 11:11 AM Christoph Müllner wrote:
>
> Ping.
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 9:36 PM Christoph Müllner
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 8:54 PM Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 02:32:12 PDT (-0700), cmuell...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
> > > > Ok,
Ping.
On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 11:11 AM Christoph Müllner wrote:
>
> Ping.
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 4:33 PM Christoph Muellner
> wrote:
> >
> > The RISC-V cpymemsi expansion is called, whenever the by-pieces
> > infrastructure will not be taking care of the builtin expansion.
> > Currently,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101898
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-08-13
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 5:43 AM Rainer Orth
wrote:
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> > This patch updates libgo from the Go1.16.5 release to the Go 1.17rc2
> > release. As usual with these version updates, the patch itself is too
> > large to attach to this e-mail message. I've attached the changes to
> > files
On Linux/x86_64,
4341b1b165751e728692eec12405fc04b2c681aa is the first bad commit
commit 4341b1b165751e728692eec12405fc04b2c681aa
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Fri Aug 13 10:04:52 2021 +0200
Introduce EAF_NOREAD and cleanup EAF_UNUSED + ipa-modref
caused
FAIL: g++.dg/warn/uninit-1.C
Hi Segher, thank you for the review, I'll work on the issues you pointed.
On 13/08/2021 13:04, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi!
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 10:46:37AM -0300, Raphael Moreira Zinsly wrote:
* config/rs6000/linux-unwind.h (struct rt_sigframe): Move it to
outside of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101259
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Aug 12 2021, Patrick McGehearty via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/libgcc/config/rs6000/_divkc3.c b/libgcc/config/rs6000/_divkc3.c
> > index a1d29d2..2b229c8 100644
> > --- a/libgcc/config/rs6000/_divkc3.c
> > +++
Hi Peter,
On 8/13/21 12:01 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
On 8/12/21 1:20 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 7:37 PM Peter Bergner wrote:
gcc/
PR target/101849
* config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c (rs6000_gimple_fold_mma_builtin): Cast
pointer to __vector_pair *.
On 8/12/21 2:32 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 at 02:09, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 8/6/21 4:51 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 06/08/2021 01:06, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
On 8/4/21 3:46 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 03/08/2021 18:44, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 8/3/21
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021, Patrick McGehearty via Gcc-patches wrote:
> If _divkc3.c is not intended to provide a version of complex divide
> that handles IBM-128 format, then where should that option be handled?
That should be the function __divtc3. (A single libgcc binary supports
multiple long
On 8/12/21 1:20 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 7:37 PM Peter Bergner wrote:
>> gcc/
>> PR target/101849
>> * config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c (rs6000_gimple_fold_mma_builtin): Cast
>> pointer to __vector_pair *.
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/
>> PR
On 8/12/2021 9:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
When we have a target_clone *declaration*, it does not make sense doing
the default version local. The use-case in the PR is that the reporter
wants to implement the function in assembly.
Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives
On 8/13/2021 7:47 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
Currently, the IPA ICF pass optimistically assumes that SSA NAMES do
match.
It's fine, but we should match SSA_NAME_IS_DEFAULT_DEF, otherwise we get
the verification error where a pair of SSA_NAMEs is equal, but hash
values
do differ.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 12:05 AM Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 16:16:04 -0700
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 3:34 PM Sergei Trofimovich via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Sergei Trofimovich
> > >
> > > I noticed test failures when ran gcc
Hi,
On 8/12/21 3:43 PM, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote:
Per discussion with Martin, I'm also changing the post-increment to
pre-increment in safe_inc_pos. That's what I'm regstrapping at the moment.
Thanks,
Bill
On 8/12/21 3:28 PM, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote:
Although
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101259
--- Comment #3 from Gaius Mulley ---
"doko at debian dot org" writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101259
>
> Matthias Klose changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101391
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gaiusmod2 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:15:21AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 10:49 AM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 12:14:14AM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > > I noticed that the xxeval built-in function used the
> > > altivec_register_operand
> > >
Hi!
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 10:46:37AM -0300, Raphael Moreira Zinsly wrote:
> * config/rs6000/linux-unwind.h (struct rt_sigframe): Move it to
> outside of get_regs() in order to use it in another function.
Say you do this twice, once for __powerpc64__, once for !__powerpc64__?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101902
Bug ID: 101902
Summary: [12 regression] g++.dg/warn/uninit-1.C has excess
errors after r12-2898
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97657
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|ASSIGNED
1 - 100 of 208 matches
Mail list logo
