https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83662
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #10)
> I just got the same error with gcc 12.3.0:
> https://github.com/kokkos/kokkos/issues/6367
This should be filed seperately as it is a darwin target specific
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83662
Sergey Fedorov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vital.had at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100082
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like it is jump threading differences between GCC 11 and GCC 12 which
fixes this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101813
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111051
--- Comment #2 from Haochen Jiang ---
It is caused by when including immintrin.h, since the pragma is removed, there
will be no AVX support, which makes _mm256_setzero_pd invisible.
Adding a AVX2 pragma instead of removing it should solve the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93176
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100314
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100220
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100113
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100113
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100191
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.1.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100188
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> At -O3 we inline less, keeping the call to d() in main(). We then fail to
> constant propagate the const promoted 'b'.
So yes we do inline less kinda of. At
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111057
--- Comment #5 from Chris Packham ---
Created attachment 55751
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55751=edit
Remove crypt and crypt_r interceptors
Attached is the patch derived from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78790
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
noipa was added in GCC 8, which fixes the testsuite writing issue so maybe this
can be closed as won't fix ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99834
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The other way of optimizing this is to see that the return value of d is 0
(even early on) and do a const prop of that ... IN a sense an IPA-CCP for
return values rather than for argument passing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99788
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.1.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111057
--- Comment #4 from Chris Packham ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> What version of glibc is being built with here?
glibc-2.38
> Most likely could backport:
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111057
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-08-18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111057
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|build error:|[11/12/13 only] build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111057
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most likely could backport:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/d7bead833631486e337e541e692d9b4a1ca14edd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111057
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
What version of glibc is being built with here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111057
Bug ID: 111057
Summary: build error:
libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limit
s_posix.cpp:180:10: fatal error: crypt.h: No such file
or directory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111056
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alex Henrie from comment #3)
> I imagine that it would be difficult to change GCC's behavior to match
> Clang's in this case.
Except GCC does not warn at -O1 and above (there are a few other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93176
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|amodra at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111056
--- Comment #3 from Alex Henrie ---
By the way, thanks for pointing out that using constexpr suppresses the warning
on GCC. Although Clang does not support constexpr in C yet, it is interesting
that Clang is smart enough to not warn about a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107646
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #4)
> Some ideas of projects we could analyze:
https://github.com/fedora-python/python-ethtool
(Although deprecated, it's relatively small and has been ported to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111056
Alex Henrie changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111056
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
We don't warn for the same reason as we don't warn for `constexpr` because the
value is known at compile time.
That is:
```
#include
int main()
{
signed int a = 1;
enum : signed int { b = 1 }d =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111054
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111056
Bug ID: 111056
Summary: Missing -Wsign-compare warning with enum values
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96233
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Beständig ---
Created attachment 55750
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55750=edit
Bugreport as proposed by using -freport-bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111055
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111055
Bug ID: 111055
Summary: [C++23] Implement P1206R7, Conversions from ranges to
containers
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111045
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org,
linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r14-3275-20230817153757-gc6259c4975e-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.0 20230817 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111051
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Found this difference, looks reasonable?
// $ cat a.cc
#include
#pragma GCC target("avx512vl,avx512dq")
void bug(__m256i i) {
volatile auto v1 = _mm256_cvtepi64_pd(i);
}
Difference:
$ g++-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111053
Bug ID: 111053
Summary: std::ranges::copy is missing important optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111052
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111051
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111052
Bug ID: 111052
Summary: std::format_to(std::back_inserter(str), "") should
write directly to the string
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111051
Bug ID: 111051
Summary: [14 Regression] highway-1.0.6 fails to build as
gcc-14.0.0/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/14.0.0/inc
lude/avxintrin.h:1238:1: error: inlining failed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110945
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk. This seems worth considering for backports later though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110945
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cc3d7baf2741777e99567d4301802c99f5775619
commit r14-3306-gcc3d7baf2741777e99567d4301802c99f5775619
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110825
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58312
--- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager ---
Created attachment 55748
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55748=edit
rejects file for libssp/configure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58312
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
Created attachment 55747
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55747=edit
rejects file for libssp/configure.ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58312
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #8)
> So I tried applying the patch against current gcc sources, and got these
> results:
>
> $ patch <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58312
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
So I tried applying the patch against current gcc sources, and got these
results:
$ patch < /Users/ericgallager/Downloads/2013-09-03_libssp-configure.diff
patching file configure.ac
Hunk #1 FAILED at 125.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110996
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107646
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-08-17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111009
--- Comment #12 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
I confirm the change fixed `perf` startup for me. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90835
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107646
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #4)
> Some ideas of projects we could analyze:
* https://pypi.org/project/mercurial/ ; see:
https://repo.mercurial-scm.org/hg-stable/file/tip/mercurial/cext
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77517
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107646
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #6)
> (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #5)
> Some attribute ideas:
>
> extern int PyDict_SetItem(PyObject *p, PyObject *key, PyObject *val)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107646
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #5)
> How precisely to track behavior of API entrypoints? We can’t implement
> known_functions that precisely model every entrypoint.
>
> Consider:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111049
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like this is fixed for GCC 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107646
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
How precisely to track behavior of API entrypoints? We can’t implement
known_functions that precisely model every entrypoint.
Consider:
https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/dict.html#c.PyDict_SetItem
which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111048
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110995
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111048
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107646
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Some ideas of projects we could analyze:
- minimal Cython-generated C file
- https://pypi.org/project/psycopg2/
- https://pypi.org/project/numpy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111009
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dc48d1d1d4458773f89f21b2f019f66ddf88f2e5
commit r14-3296-gdc48d1d1d4458773f89f21b2f019f66ddf88f2e5
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110801
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Created attachment 55739 [details]
> Add special case for format("{}", integer)
The _Seq_sink::_M_get_pointer and _Iter_sink::_M_get_pointer overrides in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108790
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110782
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110784
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110770
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jemarch at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111029
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111047
--- Comment #3 from gnzlbg ---
Thank you both.
> should probably output "[-Wpsabi]" to make this clear.
+1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108827
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4a6f3676e7dd9e73a822f4da634b037299f0d482
commit r14-3293-g4a6f3676e7dd9e73a822f4da634b037299f0d482
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109751
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44209
Bug 44209 depends on bug 106537, which changed state.
Bug 106537 Summary: GCC doesn't support -W[no-]compare-distinct-pointer-types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106537
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111009
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Macleod ---
> At the hazard of stating the obvious: it's a wrong-code when you execute it
> (not a gcc ICE).
>
doh. of course.
test is in progress. Richi was correct. Although the code in range-ops for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106537
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106537
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jose E. Marchesi :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e1f45bea2741c271efbc4c2f9dfad93cbcd644c0
commit r14-3291-ge1f45bea2741c271efbc4c2f9dfad93cbcd644c0
Author: Jose E. Marchesi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-08-17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110628
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
The mismatch happens on:
void foo (unsigned int x)
{
if (x != 0x800 && x != 0x810)
abort ();
}
It is bug in reassoc turning:
void foo (unsigned int x)
{
;; basic block 2, loop depth 0, count
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050
Bug ID: 111050
Summary: [11/12/13/14 Regression] ABI break in
_Hash_node_value_base since GCC 11
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111049
Bug ID: 111049
Summary: spurious stringop-overflow depending on structure
pointer arithmetic with certain sized structures
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111039
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111047
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-08-17
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111039
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:482551a79a3d3f107f6239679ee74655cfe8707e
commit r14-3288-g482551a79a3d3f107f6239679ee74655cfe8707e
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111019
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> So really caused by r9-4993-g1c852d1d7096a8 plus all the followups that went
> into this code. One triggering fact is that operand_equal_p
> of MEM[(struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111024
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f3c4517b1fff965f2bdedcf376dcfd91cda422b
commit r14-3287-g8f3c4517b1fff965f2bdedcf376dcfd91cda422b
Author: Tobias Burnus
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66425
--- Comment #59 from Roman Krotov ---
(In reply to Ed Catmur from comment #58)
> (In reply to Roman Krotov from comment #57)
I already addressed all of it in my previous 2 comments...
I'll write more clearly then.
> > But I don't see any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69046
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111019
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
So really caused by r9-4993-g1c852d1d7096a8 plus all the followups that went
into this code. One triggering fact is that operand_equal_p
of MEM[(struct Target *)_26].D.43475.next with itself is false ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111019
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111046
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111046
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jose E. Marchesi :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7c50f68f26146e7038e9793b6c623ff4c4895d3
commit r14-3284-gb7c50f68f26146e7038e9793b6c623ff4c4895d3
Author: Jose E. Marchesi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111048
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard.sandiford at arm dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111045
--- Comment #1 from Jeevitha ---
TARGET_PCREL was enabled on the Big Endian machine. However, the Big Endian ABI
does not support PCREL. Therefore, TARGET_PCREL needs to be disabled here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111019
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #3)
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2023, ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111019
> >
> > Patrick Palka changed:
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111048
Bug ID: 111048
Summary: [14 Regression] Wrong AVX2 code on highway-1.0.6 on
-O2 and above
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111047
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
-Wno-abi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102775
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Here's another example:
#include
int i = numeric_limits::digits10;
lim.cc:2:9: error: 'numeric_limits' was not declared in this scope; did you
mean 'std::numeric_limits'?
2 | int i =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111047
Bug ID: 111047
Summary: Un-silenceable note for ABI parameters 64-byte
alignment
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111039
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70529
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah that's pretty much what Manu suggested in comment 5 but without the
whitespace handling, as Jakub pointed out in comment 6. Still, Manu's patch is
a good start.
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
