https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82265
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82256
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82249
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82264
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82265
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82253
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82229
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
I would recommend to use perf toop to identify and understand what happens in
the program. I can return to that later when we'll tune GCC 8.x.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81068
--- Comment #7 from Piotr Stachura ---
Jonathan, you are right. In sample code, end of string should be input_data[8].
With this correction I have this same behavior on both systems that I use
(correct compilation and execution without sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82229
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
So for GCC 7 the drop is caused by r237791:
SVN revision: 237791
Author: hubicka
* gcc.dg/predict-12.c: New testcase.
* predict.c: Include gimple-pretty-print.h
(predicted_by_loop_h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82267
Bug ID: 82267
Summary: x32: unnecessary address-size prefixes. Why isn't
-maddress-mode=long the default?
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82266
Bug ID: 82266
Summary: [DR150] Allowing more specialized argument than
parameter for placeholder
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82259
--- Comment #4 from Peter Cordes ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> A couple of *scc_bt patterns are missing. These are similar to already
> existing *jcc_bt patterns. Combine wants:
Does gcc also need patterns for bt + cmovcc?
Thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78387
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78387
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Sep 20 01:32:59 2017
New Revision: 252992
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252992&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-09-19 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from trunk
PR l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82055
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80118
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82223
Olivia Wasalski <02c9a08a70164b24b9f762d53a64ab at gmail dot com> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82243
--- Comment #2 from harper at msor dot vuw.ac.nz ---
Since reporting the bug yesterday I have found that the bug requires the
integer n to be a subprogram argument. If instead n is a constant, the
bad array assignment is correctly diagnosed at co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82262
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82262
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82243
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82265
Bug ID: 82265
Summary: packed attribute on variables in gcc-7.1.1 no more
accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81613
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82264
Bug ID: 82264
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault in
fct,constprop
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82257
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81715
--- Comment #6 from Arnd Bergmann ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> I can confirm that for the biggest function 'nl80211_send_wiphy', it really
> contains majority of stack variables which are 4B large. Having an adaptive
> redzone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82263
Bug ID: 82263
Summary: java multilib -m32 version is using 64 bit include and
lib, _GStaticAssertCompileTimeAssertion_0
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82262
Bug ID: 82262
Summary: std::hash>::operator() missing
remove_const_t
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82240
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82150
--- Comment #5 from david.welch at netronome dot com ---
it is definitely doing prefetching by not realizing those instructions are
unconditional branches. most likely going with strongly ordered rather than
the XN bit but noted as a workaround.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81903
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82229
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
One another observation: using PGO (-fprofile-generate and -fprofile-use), both
GCC 6 and GCC 7 have similar performance: 34fps. While GCC 6 has 43 fps on my
machine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82240
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this due to the following from atom.md:
(define_insn_reservation "atom_icmp" 1
(and (eq_attr "cpu" "atom")
(and (eq_attr "type" "icmp")
(eq_attr "memory" "none")))
"atom-simple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82229
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|janus at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81647
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82261
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Related to PR 55583.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82229
--- Comment #11 from krzysio.kurek at wp dot pl ---
Done, cmake will now default to Release config with altered compiler flags that
include -flto.
;>= (32-n); //&31;
return a|b;
}
// https://godbolt.org/g/3jbgbR
g++ (GCC-Explorer-Build) 8.0.0 20170919 -O3 -march=haswell
movl$32, %eax
subl%edx, %eax # missed optimization: NEG would work
shrx%eax, %esi, %eax
shlx%edx, %edi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71500
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Sep 19 17:06:12 2017
New Revision: 252981
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252981&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/71500 restore C++11 compatibility in
PR libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82259
--- Comment #3 from Peter Cordes ---
Oops, BT sets CF, not ZF. So
bt $13, %edi
setnc %al# aka setae
ret
This is what clang does for the bt_ functions, and might be optimal for many
use-cases. (For br
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82259
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Peter Cordes from comment #0)
> Related:
>
> bool bt_unsigned(unsigned x, unsigned bit) {
> //bit = 13;
> return !(x & (1< }
>
> movl%esi, %ecx
> movl$1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82260
Bug ID: 82260
Summary: [x86] Unnecessary use of 8-bit registers with -Os.
slightly slower and larger code
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82259
--- Comment #1 from Peter Cordes ---
More generally, you can flip a higher bit while copying with
lea 64(%rdi), %eax
That leaves the bits above that position munged by carry-out, but that isn't
always a problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82259
Bug ID: 82259
Summary: missed optimization: use LEA to add 1 to flip the low
bit when copying before AND with 1
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47769
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #6 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80295
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80295
--- Comment #4 from Qing Zhao ---
working on a fix to this bug.
let me know if you are working on it too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82150
mgretton at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mgretton at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82258
Bug ID: 82258
Summary: [regression] allocate_zerosize_3.f fails since r251949
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81373
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Pop ---
The patch looks good. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79622
--- Comment #10 from Sebastian Pop ---
> So a black-box would be a set of stmts rather than a whole GIMPLE BB
Correct: this can be an abstract view of the IR. The only place where we want
to start transforming the code is in the code generation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82254
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.3
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82254
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Sep 19 14:33:51 2017
New Revision: 252977
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252977&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/82254 fix std::is_nothrow_invocable_r w.r.t throwing convers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81854
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69728
--- Comment #19 from Sebastian Pop ---
> So how'd we properly handle a valid empty domain?
DCE the statement.
If the domain for a statement is empty, it means that the statement does not
execute: it is dead code.
I think we are better enforcin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82257
Bug ID: 82257
Summary: f951: Internal compiler error segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81854
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Sep 19 14:27:32 2017
New Revision: 252976
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252976&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/81854 - weak alias of an incompatible symbol accepted
gcc/ChangeLog:
Hi,
Trust my email discovers you well.
Are you looking out to acquire the list of customers or companies using
Microsoft Dynamics Users Info?
We also have Microsoft Products which you may be interested in:-
Microsoft Dynamics SL
Microsoft Dynamics AX
Microsoft Dynamics ERP
Microsoft Ya
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81068
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If you use &input_data[7] then you do not have valid UTF-8 input, because it
ends with an incomplete multibyte character, "\xCD", instead of "\CD\x8B"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81068
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81068
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The difference in results isn't very relevant. I'm pretty sure the reason for
the sanitizer errors is that libstdc++.so isn't instrumented by the sanitizers.
If you build libstdc++.so with UBsan you wouldn'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81373
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The following patch fixes this. We fail to handle scev_analyzable_p
loop-closed
PHIs that are live-out to the region.
Index: gcc/graphite-scop-detection.c
==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82256
Bug ID: 82256
Summary: regression: clones created by
create_version_clone_with_body are not observable to
insertion hooks
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82246
--- Comment #4 from erwan.adam at cea dot fr ---
Ok
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82255
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82255
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 42206
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42206&action=edit
Patch under test
Here's a patch I'm testing. It solves the problem for this test case but
hasn't been regstrapp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81068
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82255
Bug ID: 82255
Summary: Vectorizer cost model overcounts cost of some
vectorized loads
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81715
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81068
--- Comment #2 from Piotr Stachura ---
I have to check it deeper.
I have 2 systems - one gentoo and one Ubuntu.
On Ubuntu, code is correct (as I posted in bug report).
When I compile this same code on gentoo (gcc-5.4.0 and gcc-7.2.0) I have this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82246
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859
Bug 59859 depends on bug 80213, which changed state.
Bug 80213 Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE in check_loop_closed_ssa_use, at
tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:704
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80213
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80213
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82246
--- Comment #2 from erwan.adam at cea dot fr ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Taking the address of array [-1] is undefined according to the c standard.
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for you answer.
Strictly speaking, I don't access direct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859
Bug 59859 depends on bug 80213, which changed state.
Bug 80213 Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE in check_loop_closed_ssa_use, at
tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:704
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80213
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80213
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82247
--- Comment #1 from Joël Lamotte ---
Just so that it's clear, it's on godbolt's compiler that I tried this:
https://godbolt.org/g/d78J4H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82253
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82252
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> What tool produces this warning?
cppcheck, available from sourceforge.
My apologies for the false positive.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82244
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Summary|[7/8 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82254
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82244
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Sep 19 11:57:39 2017
New Revision: 252973
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252973&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-09-19 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/82244
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82254
Bug ID: 82254
Summary: std::is_nothrow_invocable is broken
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82246
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Taking the address of array [-1] is undefined according to the c standard.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82252
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
What tool produces this warning?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82252
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82253
Bug ID: 82253
Summary: internal compiler error: in convert_move, at
expr.c:604 (Regression somewhere between 5.4.0 and
6.2.0))
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82252
Bug ID: 82252
Summary: src/filesystem/ops.cc:392]: (warning) Identical
condition
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82251
Bug ID: 82251
Summary: OpenMP omp_is_initial_device early folding
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp
Severity: enhancement
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82250
Bug ID: 82250
Summary: Fortran OpenACC acc_on_device early folding
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
Severity: enhancement
Priorit
th preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 8.0.0 20170919 (experimental)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68988
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57878
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57878
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Tue Sep 19 10:16:20 2017
New Revision: 252972
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252972&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
lra: make reload_pseudo_compare_func a proper comparator
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68988
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Tue Sep 19 10:16:20 2017
New Revision: 252972
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252972&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
lra: make reload_pseudo_compare_func a proper comparator
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82248
Bug ID: 82248
Summary: probe_stack can generate unpredictable STR on arm
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82247
Bug ID: 82247
Summary: [concepts] Name deduction in concepts fails depending
on the argument type
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70945
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|patch |
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Schwinge
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
