https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83938
--- Comment #3 from WeiChungChang ---
Created attachment 43183
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43183&action=edit
proposed solution
Proposed solution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83937
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|FIXME |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83937
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Link to P0135: http://wg21.link/p0135
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83930
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83931
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83937
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83496
Paul Hua changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paul.hua.gm at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83936
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83936
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83930
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651
>
> Aldy Hernandez changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83930
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] ICE: RTL |[6/7/8 Regression] ICE: RTL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83930
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43184
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43184&action=edit
gcc8-pr83930.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83938
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
Library patches should also go to libstd...@gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83496
--- Comment #8 from Paul Hua ---
On GCC 8.x, the r248351 fixed this.
commit fd891ec7f659e8785c3ed5757f6e60c95117b837
Author: segher
Date: Mon May 22 21:20:51 2017 +
cfgcleanup: Ignore clobbers in bb_is_just_return
The function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651
--- Comment #11 from Arnd Bergmann ---
Trying out the patch from comment 10 on the original preprocessed source as
attached to pr83356 also shows very noticeable improvements with stack spilling
there:
x86_64-linux-gcc-6.3.1 -Wall -O2 -S ./aes_g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83939
Bug ID: 83939
Summary: Constraint C1290 (elemental function cannot be
allocatable) not enforced
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65578
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83940
Bug ID: 83940
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_stmt_copy,
at tree-vect-stmts.c:1531
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
So somehow without code hoisting we don't find a single PRE opportunity -
that's odd. Ah, so it goes
int x;
int foo(int cond1, int cond2, int op1, int op2, int op3)
{
int op;
if (cond1)
{
x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83937
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83932
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83906
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
What is shown in the libstdc++.log file before the FAIL line?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83834
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jan 19 11:25:14 2018
New Revision: 256882
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256882&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/83834 replace wildcard pattern in linker script
Backport f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83834
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jan 19 11:25:33 2018
New Revision: 256883
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256883&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/83834 replace wildcard pattern in linker script
Backport f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83834
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83940
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83906
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
type =
std::unique_ptr, std::allocator >>[]>>[99]>^M
got: type =
std::unique_ptr, std::allocator >>[]>>[99]>^M
FAIL: libstdc++-prettyprinters/80276.cc whatis p4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83940
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |8.0
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83922
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Fri Jan 19 11:57:47 2018
New Revision: 256885
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256885&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Check whether any statements need masking (PR 83922)
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83914
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Fri Jan 19 11:57:34 2018
New Revision: 256884
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256884&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Avoid ICE for nested inductions (PR 83914)
This testcas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83914
--- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Fixed on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83922
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83914
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83940
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83589
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
I've minimized mode-transitions.c to:
...
#define n 32
int
main (void)
{
int arr_a[n];
#pragma acc parallel copyout(arr_a) num_gangs(1) num_workers(1)
vector_length(32)
{
#pragma acc loop vector
for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83940
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Unfortunately, on the trunk, the vect_is_simple_use call for op is hidden in
the new vect_check_store_rhs function and the dt isn't propagated to the
caller, I think we should change that.
The several
vect_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651
--- Comment #13 from Arnd Bergmann ---
Created attachment 43185
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43185&action=edit
Linux kernel version of AES algorithm, ported to standalone executable
I've had another look at extracting a t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83906
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83940
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83906
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah, or maybe the typedef std::__cxx11::string is not in the debug info, so the
type printer doesn't know that std::__cxx11::basic_string is the same
type as std::__cxx11::string.
In testsuite/libstdc++-pre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83917
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, arnd at linaro dot org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651
>
> --- Comment #13 from Arnd Bergmann ---
> Created attachment 43185
> --> https://gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81657
--- Comment #15 from Wilco ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #12)
>
> > >
> > > Do you have data to show that?
> >
> > Yes, on x64 I get these timings for a simple function containing just the
> > lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81657
--- Comment #14 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> No matter what, I don't see how you could use much common infrastructure
> here.
> Say if the tailcall pass sees strlen (something) + something being returned,
> it cou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81657
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #15)
> I don't think it's safe to compare different benchmark results like that.
> But yes the kernel for both should be very similar. The key difference is
> that strchr need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81657
--- Comment #17 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #15)
> > I don't think it's safe to compare different benchmark results like that.
> > But yes the kernel for both should be very simila
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651
--- Comment #15 from Arnd Bergmann ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #14)
> Would be nice if somebody can bisect it. It doesn't look like a PRE
> specific issue because there's no relevant PRE changes in the rev. range.
> I can't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, arnd at linaro dot org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651
>
> --- Comment #15 from Arnd Bergmann ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78797
Vladimir Fuka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vladimir.fuka at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83886
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83845
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81657
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #17)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Wilco from comment #15)
> > > I don't think it's safe to compare different benchmark results like that.
> > > Bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83833
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83833
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Rounding errors, I'll make it check within a tolerance.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81657
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
strchr with a c == 0 codepath doesn't have to be the same inner loop as strlen
and for the returning of pointer rather than length can be more efficient than
strlen.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83941
Bug ID: 83941
Summary: Debug info generated with -flto contains useless
forwarders
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: lto, missed-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83941
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83941
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83055
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83510
--- Comment #6 from Franz Sirl ---
The patch in comment 5 applied to r256877 fixes the warning in both the
testcase and the original code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83906
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Ah, or maybe the typedef std::__cxx11::string is not in the debug info, so
> the type printer doesn't know that std::__cxx11::basic_string is the
> same type as std::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83081
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83920
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc, patch
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83790
--- Comment #1 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Fri Jan 19 14:21:08 2018
New Revision: 256891
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256891&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx] Add support for CUDA 9
PR target/83790
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83934
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
These tests started failing again somewhere in the revision 256866 to 256871
range.
New failures:
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr83619.C -O0 (test for warnings, line 27)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr83619.C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83934
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Try r256890. Sorry for screwing it up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83941
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So just use some needed bit on each DIE and only prune those which don't cary
any additional information from their abstract origin and aren't referenced by
anything?
E.g. there is die_mark bit that could be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83081
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the bug is in do_compare_rtx_and_jump probability handling, looking
into this now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82517
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83008
--- Comment #29 from sergey.shalnov at intel dot com ---
Richard,
Thank you for your latest patch. I would like to clarify
the multiple_p() function usage in if() clause.
First of all, I assume that architectures with fixed
size of HW register
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83147
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79262
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sbergman at redhat dot com
Target Milestone: ---
With recent trunk "g++ (GCC) 8.0.1 20180119 (experimental)" towards GCC 8:
> $ cat test.cc
> enum class E {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83147
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andreas Krebbel from comment #1)
> > Created attachment 42714 [details]
> > Experimental patch
> >
> > This patch appears to fix the problem fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83943
Bug ID: 83943
Summary: internal compiler error: in
get_constraint_for_ptr_offset, at
tree-ssa-structalias.c:3155
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83081
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83920
--- Comment #12 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Jan 19 16:29:41 2018
New Revision: 256894
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256894&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx] Fix bug in jit bug workaround
2018-01-19 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83944
Bug ID: 83944
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault with -O
-ftree-pre
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83945
Bug ID: 83945
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault with -O
-fcode-hoisting
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83920
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83942
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83945
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83945
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.3
Summary|internal compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
--- Comment #15 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The build succeeds with -fno-split-stack. Turned out that willow2 had
glibc-2.17 so split-stack was disabled and genoa has 2.23 which enables it. So
this issue has something to with compiling fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83335
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83889
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83888
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83851
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83945
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83944
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83943
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83945
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
*** Bug 83943 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83945
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
*** Bug 83944 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82303
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Garnier ---
Created attachment 43189
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43189&action=edit
testcase for mcmodel=large
Build with: gcc -mcmodel=large -c -fstatic-pie ./test.c -o test
Dump relocations on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83901
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82303
Thomas Garnier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43189|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82303
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Garnier ---
I tested the change against a modified version of the proposed Linux x86_64 PIE
support. The changes removes all the PLT32 and GOT64 entry but I still get
R_X86_64_GOTPC64 & R_X86_64_GOTOFF64 relocations on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83946
Bug ID: 83946
Summary: [7/8 Regression] Safe Indirect Jumps broken on AIX
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83946
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
