https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95613
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 55211
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55211=edit
patch that fixes bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95613
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 55210
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55210=edit
testcase 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95613
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 55209
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55209=edit
testcase 3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95613
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 55208
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55208=edit
testcase 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95613
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=110031
--- Comment #3 from Steven Xia ---
Thanks for the improved testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91960
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch causes a run-on error in gfortran.dg/pr69962.f90, so that testcase needs
adjustment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110028
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91960
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91960
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 55205
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55205=edit
testcase 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91960
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 55206
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55206=edit
testcase 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91960
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=110025
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110025
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55203
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55203=edit
reduced self-contained testcase for testcase #1
This removes all of the unneeded code really.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110025
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55202
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55202=edit
self contained testcase for testcase 2
No headers. -std=c++2b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110025
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55201
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55201=edit
testcase 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110025
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55200
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55200=edit
testcase 1
Please next time attach the testcases rather than just links to godbolt.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110031
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69101
--- Comment #14 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 55199
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55199=edit
testcase 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69101
--- Comment #13 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 55198
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55198=edit
testcase 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69101
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=110033
--- Comment #1 from Neil Carlson ---
This must be related to PR78152
par. 2 (f2018), Y should be regarded as a coarray,
however gfortran rejects this as invalid.
real :: x[*]
associate (y => x)
y[1] = 1.0
end associate
end
gfortran -fcoarray=lib gfortran-20230529.f90
gfortran-20230529.f90:18:4:
18 | y[1] = 1.0
|1
Error: Coarray designator at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109974
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110031
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Self-contained testcase without any headers:
```
template
[[deprecated]]
inline constexpr bool t = true ;
template
struct enableif;
template<>
struct enableif
{
using y = int;
};
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110032
Bug ID: 110032
Summary: Option Alias(opt, posarg, negarg) doesn't accept multi
args for posarg
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49263
--- Comment #47 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #46)
> Reminder that patches go to the gcc-patches mailing list
It's OK. We're just throwing around ideas, nothing final
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105847
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 55196
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55196=edit
patch that fixes the bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105847
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 55195
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55195=edit
dejagnu-ified testcase
Testcase showing the wrong namelist object name ends up in the file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49263
--- Comment #46 from Eric Gallager ---
Reminder that patches go to the gcc-patches mailing list
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78798
--- Comment #13 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #12)
> The master branch has been updated by Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c072df1ab144506cd8bb0ac81fb8f1aad69f0bd2
>
> commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109812
--- Comment #11 from jun zhang ---
Hello, Hubicka and Artem
I try to reproduce this issue in Raptor Lake,
I use -fopenmp -O3 -flto, meet the following error,
but if use -fopenmp -O3, no -flto, build ok.
Could you help me?
libtool: link:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105594
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 55194
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55194=edit
patch that fixes bug
Patch from comment #1 still fixes this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104626
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 55193
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55193=edit
patch from comment #2, which fixes the bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103796
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #4)
> Comment on attachment 52046 [details]
> New diff
>
> This replaces the first diff, which was prematurely created.
The 'new diff' patch still rejects both
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103795
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103795
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52044|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 55191
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55191=edit
patch that fixes bug
The patch, which was previously submitted, still applies and fixes the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110031
Bug ID: 110031
Summary: ICE: error reporting routines re-entered on non-type
template argument
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110030
Bug ID: 110030
Summary: recursive template leads to long compilation time
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102331
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99368
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 55190
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55190=edit
patch that fixes bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99368
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Update patch to deal with the great *.c to *.cc rename event. Patch passes
regression testing.
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/match.cc b/gcc/fortran/match.cc
index e7be7fddc64..c1920bc618d 100644
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110029
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110029
Bug ID: 110029
Summary: more precise documentation for cleanup attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110028
Bug ID: 110028
Summary: slow compilation on incorrect namespace after gcc-12.1
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110027
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109815
John Parke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||John.Parke at alebra dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110016
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The condition variable uses that mutex to synchronize. If you just modify the
atomic variable _without locking and unlocking the mutex_ then you are not
synchronizing with the condition variable.
If you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110027
Bug ID: 110027
Summary: Misaligned vector store on
detect_stack_use_after_return
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101188
--- Comment #10 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 55189
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55189=edit
Proposed patch for postreload.cc so analysis is not bypassing "next" insn.
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109973
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87858
--- Comment #12 from Matthew Krupcale ---
I've updated the patch to include the target libstdc++ path on LD_LIBRARY_PATH
only after stage1 for both host and target module exports--that is, previously,
the patches only modified the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110025
--- Comment #1 from John Eivind Helset ---
Some other weirdness related to use of `auto(expr)` in template-arguments:
https://godbolt.org/z/jf64xExTW
Might be a separate bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 55188
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55188=edit
Patch implementing the wording change "'#pragma omp/acc' clause" → "an
OpenMP/ACC clause" (untested)
I think the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87858
Matthew Krupcale changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #44945|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87858
--- Comment #10 from Matthew Krupcale ---
Created attachment 55186
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55186=edit
GCC 7 post stage1 libstdc++ path export patch
This patch is for GCC 7 and exports the target libstdc++ path on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108041
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Created attachment 55185
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55185=edit
(Incomplete) Patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109592
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Attached is what I cobbled together. It doesn't use magic numbers. But it
doesn't yet handle zero extensions in the simplify-rtx code. But I think it
shows the overall direction fairly well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92497
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-May/619969.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68930
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-May/619969.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107812
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110016
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110024
--- Comment #3 from d_vampile ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Which core is showing the difference here?
> Because some cores I know of, loading/storing using the FP registers is
> actually one cycle slower than using GPRs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110016
--- Comment #14 from Rachel Mant ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> Let me try again to show the exact events of why I think this is not a
> libstdc++/GCC bug here.
>
>
> time thread/core 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110026
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110016
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect if you change the lambda/call to substrate::threadPool_t::waitWork to
be:
inline std::pair> waitWork()
noexcept
{
std::unique_lock
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110026
Bug ID: 110026
Summary: [Bug] 5% performance drop on important benchmark after
r260951.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110024
d_vampile changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110025
Bug ID: 110025
Summary: ICE with default-argument for template-param with
decltype and auto.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100673
John Eivind Helset changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49263
--- Comment #45 from Alexander Klepikov
---
>I have an idea. If it's impossible to defer initial optimization,
> maybe it's possible to emit some intermediate insn and catch it and optimize
> later?
Good news. I've made a proof of concept. It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110024
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110024
--- Comment #1 from d_vampile ---
It can be seen that the vector register (D0) is used before the modification,
and the common register (X0) is used after the modification.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110024
Bug ID: 110024
Summary: [Bug] 5% performance drop on important benchmark after
r260951.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110021
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110023
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10.3 Regression] 10% |10% performance drop on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110016
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
Let me try again to show the exact events of why I think this is not a
libstdc++/GCC bug here.
time thread/core 1 thread/core N
-1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110023
Bug ID: 110023
Summary: [10.3 Regression] 10% performance drop on important
benchmark after r247544.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110021
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3c1e2b76e0f44a3a149dae8d803b03214025fd5e
commit r14-1364-g3c1e2b76e0f44a3a149dae8d803b03214025fd5e
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110022
Bug ID: 110022
Summary: -Wsuggest-override incorrectly warns on missing
override
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110016
Rachel Mant changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rachel at rachelmant dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110021
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109547
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110020
--- Comment #2 from Paweł Bylica ---
Yes, you are right. Sorry for taking your time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110021
Bug ID: 110021
Summary: [14 Regression] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2791
on x86_64 with -mavx512vl since
r14-1253-g0368fc54bc11f1
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110020
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110020
Bug ID: 110020
Summary: [13/14 Regression] SHA2 misscompilation at -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110019
Bug ID: 110019
Summary: Reported line numbers ar off-by-1 when preprocessing
source files
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100667
--- Comment #5 from Piotr Nycz ---
It also fails on gcc12, gcc13 and trunk
pon., 29 maj 2023 o 12:09 jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
napisał(a):
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100667
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109435
--- Comment #3 from Jovan Dmitrović ---
Tentative patch posted on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-May/619949.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98623
--- Comment #2 from Martin Uecker ---
PATCH: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-May/619943.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109547
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:98fc9d38db95b3396a8540accc1bc45e71080650
commit r13-7386-g98fc9d38db95b3396a8540accc1bc45e71080650
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109573
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.4|11.5
--- Comment #14 from Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109521
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.4|11.5
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109449
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.4|11.5
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109073
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.4|11.5
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108724
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.4|11.5
--- Comment #11 from Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108566
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.4|11.5
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109822
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.4|11.5
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek
1 - 100 of 279 matches
Mail list logo
