https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87076
--- Comment #1 from Frank Schaefer ---
Coming from PR87067: binutils suffers badly from this, because the testsuite
apparently honors $CFLAGS but intentionally ignores $LDFLAGS. So even if an
end-user does the right thing and adds consistent "-m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87073
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87070
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87070
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87084
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The error happens after some optimization. In this case, it happens after loop
unrolling has happened.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87084
Bug ID: 87084
Summary: Excessive diagnostic messages for invalid use of
__builtin_va_arg_pack{,_len}() in a loop
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66970
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to H. Peter Anvin from comment #9)
> Can I please second this request? This would be extremely useful in the
> Linux kernel, *and* it would be extremely useful in any code that for
> whatever reaso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87083
Bug ID: 87083
Summary: ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2305 (error:
unrecognizable insn)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-vali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87075
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Reduced:
template
struct vec
{
struct { T y; };
vec() = default;
};
template
struct S
{
vec value[2];
template
constexpr S(const U&);
};
template
template
constexpr S::S(const X&)
{
value[0]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87082
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84087
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ark at acm dot org
--- Comment #12 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87080
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Probably with this:
--- a/gcc/cp/typeck.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/typeck.c
@@ -9196,6 +9196,9 @@ maybe_warn_pessimizing_move (tree retval, tree functype)
if (!CLASS_TYPE_P (functype))
return;
+ if (processing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87080
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87080
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87081
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le-unknown-linux-g |powerpc64*-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87082
Bug ID: 87082
Summary: Missing default argument in string::assign
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87081
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64le-unknown-linux-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87081
Bug ID: 87081
Summary: [9 regression] new test case failures with r262930
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87080
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
The bug seems to first occur between revisions 263693
and 263799, so fairly recent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87080
Bug ID: 87080
Summary: ice in cp_get_fndecl_from_callee, at cp/cvt.c:965
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83113
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Still present in 9.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87068
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87031
--- Comment #7 from Michael_S ---
Done. a new report = 87079
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87028
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87079
Bug ID: 87079
Summary: nios2 optimization for size - case of regression
relatively to 5.3.0
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87077
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
SLP doesn't like the completely unrolled code. With #pragma GCC unroll 1, we
get at least some kind of vectorization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
The MIN_EXPR code predates my change -- r255898 just moved indentation. Based
on past experience I would assume MIN_EXPR to need the same types. The code in
expand_builtin_strncmp mixes ssizetype and sizetyp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87075
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Maybe started with r239783.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87072
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Aug 23 19:39:18 2018
New Revision: 263822
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263822&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/87072 - false warning: array subscript is above array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87071
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87067
--- Comment #3 from Frank Schaefer ---
Well...it looks like Vladislav Ivanishin actually nailed down the root-cause
(see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87076 ). His small test
program reproduces the same issue I'm seeing--and based
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87072
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
A simplified test case:
$ cat t.c && gcc -O3 -S -Wall t.c
int a[10];
void f (unsigned n)
{
for (unsigned j = 0; j < n; j++) {
for (unsigned k = 0; k < j; k++)
a[j] += k;
a[j] += j;
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87078
Bug ID: 87078
Summary: [9 regression] gcc.dg/vect/slp-37.c begins failing
with r263772
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87077
Bug ID: 87077
Summary: missed optimization for horizontal add for x86 SSE
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87028
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
The test case in pr84474 uses strncpy to needlessly exclude the terminating nul
from the copy only to then add it explicitly. That's not what the function is
meant to be used for -- when it's safe to copy the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87075
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87072
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87075
Guus Sliepen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guus at debian dot org
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87076
Bug ID: 87076
Summary: -mpcu/-march not propagated through LTO bytecode
(ice/segfault if arch flags do not match)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87075
Bug ID: 87075
Summary: ICE when compiling the test suite of GLM 0.9.9.0
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87073
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes Aldy, your patch does make the ICE go away.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87013
--- Comment #7 from martin ---
Created attachment 44584
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44584&action=edit
gcc\config.log
Hi, sry for the delayed answer. I wanted to make sure that the compiler passed
the related point, but I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87071
--- Comment #7 from Sergey Kondakov ---
Created attachment 44583
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44583&action=edit
Xorg.pid-1381.gdb.log with disas
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #6)
> In your gdb script, please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80792
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87073
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82760
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87073
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87074
Bug ID: 87074
Summary: Vectorization bug: O3 result differ from O2
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87073
Bug ID: 87073
Summary: go bootstrap failure due to ICE in
vr_values::extract_range_from_binary_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86722
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
noce_try_cmove has
if ((CONSTANT_P (if_info->a) || register_operand (if_info->a, VOIDmode))
&& (CONSTANT_P (if_info->b) || register_operand (if_info->b, VOIDmode)))
but the first 3 times we go through
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84554
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to matthew.hambley from comment #1)
> What seems to be happening is that it's correctly picking up gmp.h from the
> in-source version but and old version of the library from
> /usr/lib64/libgmp.so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86948
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
Please follow up on the ML to
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg01128.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85875
programmer at posteo dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||programmer at posteo dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
First off I know little about Fortran. I looked at some articles about how to
write out values and changed the code to this (sorry if this offends any
Fortran enthusiasts):
WRITE(*,'(L1,L2,F8.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83754
Wendell Baker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wendellcraigbaker at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87054
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 23 Aug 2018, aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87054
>
> Alexandre Oliva changed:
>
>What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84554
matthew.hambley at metoffice dot gov.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthew.hambley
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87013
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
I wanted to ask, martin, can you please confirm that it does indeed fix the
problem for you?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87013
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #44573|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87071
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85433
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86995
Vlad Lazar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vlad.lazar at arm dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87054
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 44579
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44579&action=edit
alternate testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87071
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87072
Bug ID: 87072
Summary: g++6.2.0 false warning: array subscript is above array
bounds, with misleading line number
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87071
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Sergey Kondakov from comment #3)
> If your code is correct then whose isn't ?
Instructions are generated by the compiler. So, it is the compiler's fault, it
probably emits a SSE instruction that y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87068
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.0 |8.3
--- Comment #22 from Segher Boe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87071
--- Comment #3 from Sergey Kondakov ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (EE) Illegal instruction at address 0x72f2c8ea
>
> I don't see how this can possibly be a libstdc++ problem, since libstdc++
> doesn't produce any CPU in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87026
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87026
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Aug 23 12:40:14 2018
New Revision: 263810
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263810&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix recent bug in canonicalize_comparison (PR87026)
The new code te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87071
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(EE) Illegal instruction at address 0x72f2c8ea
I don't see how this can possibly be a libstdc++ problem, since libstdc++
doesn't produce any CPU instructions, illegal or not.
As I already said to you,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87071
--- Comment #1 from Sergey Kondakov ---
Created attachment 44577
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44577&action=edit
Asus_F3Ke.dmesg
Verbose dmesg from affected machine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87071
Bug ID: 87071
Summary: libstdc++ crashes during GPU driver initialization
with suspected attempt to execute unsupported
instruction by Athlon64 X2 TK-57
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87065
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So this is when trying
Trying 60, 63 -> 67:
60: r163:V4SI=r127:V4SI==r162:V4SI
REG_DEAD r127:V4SI
REG_EQUAL r127:V4SI==const_vector
63: r164:V4SI=r188:V4SI-r163:V4SI
67: r166:V4SI={
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87065
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87068
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87070
Bug ID: 87070
Summary: Combine popcount on pieces to a single popcountll
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86957
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Agree that we should provide that information to user. Question is whether we
want to present it as a note (of a warning) or use new dump_printf_loc
machinery?
I can Indu help with that if needed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87069
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87069
Bug ID: 87069
Summary: gcov accumulates results for identical files
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87068
Bug ID: 87068
Summary: No diagnostic on an ill-formed [[fallthrough]]
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87065
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87028
--- Comment #3 from anon63 ---
Dear Martin,
Thank you for the explanations.
Do you have any advice of what we should do before this eventual deferring of
the strncpy -> memcpy folding in a future gcc release ?
In particular, can you elaborate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87056
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Thu Aug 23 10:21:21 2018
New Revision: 263807
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263807&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[libiberty patch] Fix PGO bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87056
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87018
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Here is one way that works: (this is on gcc119):
Use bash as your shell.
export SHELL=/usr/bin/bash
export CONFIG_SHELL=/usr/bin/bash
export PATH=/opt/freeware/bin:$PATH
~/src/gcc/configure --disable-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86951
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86772
Bug 86772 depends on bug 86951, which changed state.
Bug 86951 Summary: arm speculation barrier incompatible with ARMv6 or earlier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86951
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86951
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Aug 23 09:47:34 2018
New Revision: 263806
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263806&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/86951 arm - Handle speculation barriers on pre-armv7 CPUs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86947
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86988
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/9 Regression] ICE: tree |[7 Regression] ICE: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87024
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Aug 23 09:29:45 2018
New Revision: 263805
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263805&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-08-23 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/87024
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87024
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[6/7/8/9 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86837
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
I have a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #2 from Janne Blomqvist ---
I'm a bit confused, r263751 should only affect behavior wrt NaN's and possibly
signed zeroes, and AFAICS none of those are present in the testcase. Can you
print out the values of rv and vresult just before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87062
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
