http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46861
--- Comment #4 from Jay jay.krell at cornell dot edu 2010-12-11 08:47:22 UTC
---
It appears to also be ok in 4.3.5.
j...@alphalinux:~$ $HOME/gcc-4.3.5/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: alphaev5-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46861
--- Comment #5 from Jay jay.krell at cornell dot edu 2010-12-11 09:40:39 UTC
---
No problem with 4.4.5 either.
j...@alphalinux:~$ $HOME/gcc-4.4.5/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: alphaev5-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31821
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29710
Dave Korn davek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2006-11-10 19:32:46 |2010-12-11 19:32:46
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46894
Summary: [4.6 Regression] vector fails on powerpc-darwin9
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29710
--- Comment #7 from Dave Korn davek at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-11 10:46:22
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Although I haven't verified that this is the same as the original problem
report, it really looks like it, modulo various changes to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46856
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2010-12-11
12:17:46 UTC ---
Jakub's r166371 is innocent, all it did was to revert an expansion mode change
in r162618 (2nd PR44790 patch). Trunk actually started to ICE for this test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31821
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-11
12:38:01 UTC ---
gfc_check_same_strlen does not check for references.
Ouch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46842
--- Comment #23 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-12-11 13:00:10 UTC ---
The patch in comment #21 also fixes the test in comment #16, but not the one in
comment #12.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31821
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46820
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-11 13:31:21 UTC
---
int __attribute__((used)) bar(void)
{
return 0;
}
__asm__(.weak\tfoo\n\t.set\tfoo,bar);
bar ends up in a different partition than the asm which then of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46894
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2010-12-11
13:55:27 UTC ---
Also seen on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu [trunk revision 167644]:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-12/msg00829.html (but for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-11
14:15:04 UTC ---
Hi,
thanks for testcase. What I was concerned about is the static linking case.
When you have static library with constructors and main program with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-11 14:28:35
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Hi,
thanks for testcase. What I was concerned about is the static linking case.
When you have static library with constructors and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #9 from Mike Hommey mh+gcc at glandium dot org 2010-12-11
14:36:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Hi,
thanks for testcase. What I was concerned about is the static linking case.
When you have static library with constructors and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-11 15:01:34
UTC ---
This explanation doesn't stand: for instance, ARM EABI exclusively uses
.init_array, and the execution order for those is forward. And when linking
static
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46820
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-11 15:03:44 UTC
---
Note that while working on mozilla, I noticed that SUN's compiler extends the
toplevel asm syntax by allowing parameters (and the usual %n references to
them). It
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ccoutant at google
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46705
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-11
15:54:38 UTC ---
If you look at the test case you will see that the '' issue is outside of the
quotes in the format statement. Right away this told me we should not be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46705
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-11
16:02:51 UTC ---
This appears to resolve the double warning issue. Regression testing now.
Index: scanner.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45201
Dave Korn davek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davek at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-11 16:17:38
UTC ---
2) I believe that the backwarding order of .ctor section was concious
QOI issue. I wonder how much legacy code this might break when static
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-11 16:53:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
2) I believe that the backwarding order of .ctor section was concious
QOI issue. I wonder how much legacy code this might
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46842
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46895
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/max-stack-align.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46625
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-11
17:48:16 UTC ---
Submitted patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00929.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
Mark Mitchell mmitchel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mmitchel at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-11 18:46:48
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
H.J. --
Some of the statements that you're making in Comment #11 are inaccurate or
unclear:
Given:
Foo foo(...);
Bar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #16 from Mark Mitchell mark at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-11
18:50:11 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 10:47 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
Linker supports sorting .ctors.N and .init_array..
Within .ctors.N and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-11 19:02:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
On 12/11/2010 10:47 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
Linker supports sorting .ctors.N and .init_array..
Within
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #18 from Mark Mitchell mark at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-11
19:33:17 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 11:03 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
I am not sure about GOLD. But it usually follows GNU linker.
For GNU linker, the constructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-11 19:44:30
UTC ---
Created attachment 22717
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22717
A demo of mixing .init_array and .ctors
Here is a demo of mixing .init_array
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #20 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-11 19:46:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
OK, do you know why the order of execution of .ctor was chosen to be reversed
even if it would make more sense to reverse .dtors?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #21 from Mark Mitchell mmitchel at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-11
19:47:38 UTC ---
H.J. --
Let's just answer the yes-or-no question: is the interleaving going to work or
isn't it?
I can't see how it possibly can, given the linker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-11 19:51:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
H.J. --
Let's just answer the yes-or-no question: is the interleaving going to work or
isn't it?
You have to be more specific
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-11 19:53:05
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
(In reply to comment #21)
H.J. --
Let's just answer the yes-or-no question: is the interleaving going to work
or
isn't it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #24 from Mark Mitchell mark at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-11
19:56:43 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 11:53 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
You have to be more specific about what you meant by interleaving.
Constructor priorities are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-11 20:04:23
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
I have said If you have constructor priorities in .o files and .c
files, you may get different behaviors if .o files are compiled
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46842
--- Comment #25 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-11
20:05:26 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Dec 11 20:05:20 2010
New Revision: 167713
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167713
Log:
2010-12-11 Mikael
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46842
--- Comment #26 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-11
20:10:06 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Dec 11 20:09:59 2010
New Revision: 167714
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167714
Log:
2010-12-11 Jerry
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46842
--- Comment #27 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-11
20:11:31 UTC ---
Fixed, thanks to Mikael concept.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #26 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-11 20:16:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
Well, it sounds to me, then, that we would be introducing a binary
compatibility problem to make this change. If we're going to do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #27 from Mark Mitchell mark at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-11
20:19:23 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 12:17 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
I don't think GCC really supports interleaving constructor priority
at binary level. Unless
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46370
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-11
20:29:01 UTC ---
Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-12/msg00061.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46896
Summary: Wrong code with transpose(a) passed to subroutine
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46842
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46705
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-11
20:41:52 UTC ---
I think this does the trick for the original and a few variations. I would
like to use an enumerator rather than 0 , 1, and 2 for the in_string flag.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #28 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-11 21:01:08
UTC ---
So I take that, the ctor order is to support priotities, since the
.ctor.priority sections get merged into single and ordered in increasing rather
than decreasing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #29 from Mark Mitchell mark at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-11
21:06:41 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 1:01 PM, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
So I take that, the ctor order is to support priotities, since the
.ctor.priority sections get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #30 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-11 21:06:49
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #27)
On 12/11/2010 12:17 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
I don't think GCC really supports interleaving constructor priority
at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46370
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-11
22:04:10 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Dec 11 22:04:06 2010
New Revision: 167715
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167715
Log:
2010-12-11 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46370
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46897
Summary: [OOP] Polymorphic type - defined ASSIGNMENT(=) not
used
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #31 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-11 22:56:35
UTC ---
Just to make it clear. We support
---
`init_priority (PRIORITY)'
In Standard C++, objects defined at namespace scope are guaranteed
to be initialized
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46705
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-11
23:14:48 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Dec 11 23:14:45 2010
New Revision: 167716
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167716
Log:
2010-12-11 Jerry
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #32 from Mark Mitchell mark at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-11
23:19:05 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 2:56 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
It works at source code level. I don't believe we ever support
interleaving constructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46705
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-11
23:26:11 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Dec 11 23:26:07 2010
New Revision: 167717
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167717
Log:
2010-12-11 Jerry
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #33 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-11 23:28:01
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
On 12/11/2010 2:56 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
It works at source code level. I don't believe we ever support
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #34 from Mark Mitchell mark at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-11
23:30:19 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 3:28 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
1. How do you find out what priority foo constructor has?
If you're looking at source code,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46705
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #35 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-11 23:48:29
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #34)
On 12/11/2010 3:28 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
1. How do you find out what priority foo constructor has?
If you're
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46896
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46896
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #36 from Mark Mitchell mark at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-11
23:54:44 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 3:48 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
1. __attribute__((init_priority(1005))) doesn't map to
.ctors.1005 section.
It probably maps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #37 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-12 00:00:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #36)
That is the constructor order between A and B. We don't support
interleaving constructor priorities between object files.
Yes, we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #38 from Mark Mitchell mark at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-12
00:03:22 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 4:00 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
Really? Here is a testcase. Do you think goo's constructor
will be called before another
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #39 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-12 00:08:29
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #38)
On 12/11/2010 4:00 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
Really? Here is a testcase. Do you think goo's constructor
will be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #40 from Mark Mitchell mark at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-12
00:11:56 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 4:08 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
We only support constructor priority in single source file:
H.J., this is false.
Please try
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #41 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-12 00:19:54
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #40)
On 12/11/2010 4:08 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
We only support constructor priority in single source file:
H.J., this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #42 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-12 00:24:26
UTC ---
Hi Mark,
Did you mean one may interleave constructor priorities? But I don't
think it is a documented feature.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #43 from Mark Mitchell mark at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-12
00:24:30 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 4:20 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
That means we only guarantee constructor priorities in one TU and
my testcase confirms it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #44 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-12 00:32:06
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #43)
On 12/11/2010 4:20 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
That means we only guarantee constructor priorities in one TU and
my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
Summary: libgcc build failure on lm32-elf
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46899
Summary: compiler optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46896
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.6.0 |---
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46899
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-12
01:54:16 UTC ---
There is no integer overflow in the code provided at all.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46899
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-12
01:55:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
There is no integer overflow in the code provided at all.
Even if there was, the standard says the behavior is undefined which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
--- Comment #1 from Masaki MURANAKA mon...@monami-software.com 2010-12-12
03:26:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 22719
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22719
Patch to config/lm32.[ch] (incomplete)
This issue was discussed at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
--- Comment #2 from Masaki MURANAKA mon...@monami-software.com 2010-12-12
03:37:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 22720
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22720
testcase after applied attachment 22719
(In reply to comment #1)
We
79 matches
Mail list logo
