https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99157
Bug ID: 99157
Summary: [ARM] libgcc -mcmse check always fail
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99151
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Huber ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Is the nop due to alignment?
With -g and -coverage I get this code:
sparc-rtems7-gcc -O2 -o - -S unreachable.c -fverbose-asm -g -coverage
.file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99156
Bug ID: 99156
Summary: __builtin_expect affects the interpretation of its
first operand
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96926
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d909ead68214042e9876a8df136d0835273d4b86
commit r11-7289-gd909ead68214042e9876a8df136d0835273d4b86
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99145
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99126
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #6)
> The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b258e263e0d74ca1f76aeaac5f4d1abef6b13707
>
> commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99126
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Andrea Corallo from comment #5)
> As a side question: do you guys think disabling "isolate-paths" is the
> right workaround for the affected versions or might have harmful side
> effects?
It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99126
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b258e263e0d74ca1f76aeaac5f4d1abef6b13707
commit r11-7288-gb258e263e0d74ca1f76aeaac5f4d1abef6b13707
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97172
--- Comment #28 from Martin Sebor ---
Follow-on patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-February/565545.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96926
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:187d0d5871b1fa572b0238b4989fa067df56778f
commit r11-7287-g187d0d5871b1fa572b0238b4989fa067df56778f
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98875
--- Comment #3 from Paul Clarke ---
The IBM Advance Toolchain supports SLES 15, where the latest version of libdw
is 0.168. We'll work around the issue by reverting the commit for the version
of GCC included with the Advance Toolchain.
I didn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98981
--- Comment #5 from Jim Wilson ---
Neither of the two patches I mentioned in comment 1 can fix the problem by
themselves, as we still have a mix of SImode and DImode operations.
I looked at REE. It doesn't work because there is more than one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96264
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d1efec57e279f5b0cd62073696cd351fce369bb7
commit r11-7285-gd1efec57e279f5b0cd62073696cd351fce369bb7
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97631
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99113
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99113
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6347f4a0904fce17eedf5c071be6f3c118680290
commit r11-7284-g6347f4a0904fce17eedf5c071be6f3c118680290
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Mon Feb 15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99023
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f9db6929d926222aee0628b93f77cd20cf3adc4
commit r11-7283-g1f9db6929d926222aee0628b93f77cd20cf3adc4
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99126
--- Comment #5 from Andrea Corallo ---
"dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs"
writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99126
>
> David Malcolm changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
"dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs"
writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99126
>
> David Malcolm changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
> Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99136
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d82f829905cfe6cb47d073825f680900274ce764
commit r11-7282-gd82f829905cfe6cb47d073825f680900274ce764
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99147
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99126
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99155
--- Comment #2 from Dennis Cote ---
Ah, I see. So the default does no optimization at all, not even redundant
instruction elimination. Even -O1 completely inlines the function to 3 MOV
instructions with constant values. So I have learned to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #57 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Below is a POC for improving the uninit analysis to handle this kind of case.
It's not complete. In particular it does not ensure that the we have the same
result on the RHS and LHS of the V_C_E.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99155
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99023
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1021222ee4d291ccb4f49cd0ae3393c83d8ff5d0
commit r11-7281-g1021222ee4d291ccb4f49cd0ae3393c83d8ff5d0
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99150
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99150
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathan Sidwell :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a796f8a43a45e04d395a599924bdad77c9809e8f
commit r11-7280-ga796f8a43a45e04d395a599924bdad77c9809e8f
Author: Nathan Sidwell
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99147
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99112
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98875
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99151
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Is the nop due to alignment?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99133
pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99034
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99122
--- Comment #16 from Martin Jambor ---
For the IPA-CP ICE, I am still running some tests, but I am currently leaning
towards the following. It might in theory disable IPA-CP in some strange K
corner cases (I am searching for those with the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98214
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 98196 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98196
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98196
--- Comment #6 from Alex Coplan ---
g:0411210fddbd3ec27c8dc1183f40f662712a2232
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98196
--- Comment #5 from Joel Hutton ---
this appears to have been fixed on trunk by
0411210fddbd3ec27c8dc1183f40f662712a2232
Author: Richard Sandiford
Date: Thu Dec 31 16:10:47 2020 +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99155
Bug ID: 99155
Summary: redundant AND instructions generated to mask bit
fields
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99153
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |nathan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87489
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |law at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99154
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99154
Bug ID: 99154
Summary: cout << and triadic issue
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99153
Bug ID: 99153
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected binding_vector, have
overload in maybe_record_mergeable_decl, at
cp/name-lookup.c:3562
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99152
Bug ID: 99152
Summary: Wrong type of implicitly captured by-value unevaluated
operand
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
URL: https://godbolt.org/z/sYsTqa
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99143
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
See e.g.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-toolchains/20201022073816.gq2...@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/T/#mb5c0e7711db14091d8d7dcbe0f4087f2fb65b6db
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99143
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99132
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99143
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
That's still sacrificing speed for space.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99132
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3bfa96895b3219afd93a7038850baef4b63c1f82
commit r11-7279-g3bfa96895b3219afd93a7038850baef4b63c1f82
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99143
--- Comment #4 from Will ---
That's great to know and I may use it as a stopgap/workaround, but it's not so
much about saving space as preserving the packing behavior of sections that
seems to work as expected on other architectures (even 64bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99150
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99151
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Huber ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> This is done intentionally, so that one gets e.g. usable backtraces from
> abort.
Ok, the stack frame could be a feature.
The extra nop on SPARC hurts a bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99151
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99143
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
If you want to save space you should use -Os, not -O2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99151
Bug ID: 99151
Summary: Missed optimization: Superfluous stack frame and code
with noreturn or __builtin_unreachable()
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99150
Bug ID: 99150
Summary: New tests in r11-7271 fail to compile
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99143
--- Comment #2 from Will ---
The issue is that these are not getting aligned down to the size of the type
causing extra space in the linker sets. The above may be a bad reduced test
case. Below is a test case that focuses on 4-byte alignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99122
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7ee164dcfe390fc030028db9112d44255637b1aa
commit r11-7278-g7ee164dcfe390fc030028db9112d44255637b1aa
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99149
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99149
Bug ID: 99149
Summary: [11 Regression] ICE during vectorization when shared
trees contain different complex patterns
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99148
Bug ID: 99148
Summary: sanitizer detects stack-buffer-overflow in
unpack_generic.c
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99122
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor ---
Like with the following, which seems to work as far as inlining is concerned,
but the latest Jakub's example ICEs when cloning for IPA-CP :-/ (I am also not
sure if the predicate to identify VLAs is the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99142
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99122
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor ---
I think that you want to disable inlining in the case when the callee has a
formal parameter which is a VLA (as opposed to a VLA actual argument of a
call), probably in inline_forbidden_p. When just the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99034
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No need for -finstrument-functions:
void *b[5];
void foo (void);
struct S { ~S (); };
static inline void
__attribute__((always_inline))
bar (int d)
{
S s;
while (d)
foo ();
}
void
baz (void)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99142
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a2ef38b1f94dd108046e702ad46dcd8e9b34625e
commit r11-7277-ga2ef38b1f94dd108046e702ad46dcd8e9b34625e
Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99034
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99122
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
E.g.
static int foo ();
int
bar (int n)
{
return foo (n, 2.0);
}
static inline int
foo (int n, struct T { char a[n]; } b)
{
int r = 0, i;
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
r += b.a[i];
return r;
}
ICEs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99122
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And one case is not covered, callee like foo in #c2, but caller passing non-VLA
argument (whatever, a double, struct S { char a[4]; }, int, etc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99122
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Like with
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-fnsummary.c b/gcc/ipa-fnsummary.c
index e32e69cd3ad..ac85be741b1 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-fnsummary.c
+++ b/gcc/ipa-fnsummary.c
@@ -2775,7 +2775,12 @@ analyze_function_body
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99122
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Another, still undefined, but perhaps slightly less so, testcase is:
> static int foo ();
>
> int
> bar (int n)
> {
> struct S { char a[n]; } x;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99147
Bug ID: 99147
Summary: Sanitizer detects heap-use-after-free in
gfc_add_flavor
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99097
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
I really cannot reproduce it with a custom ld.gold build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99146
Bug ID: 99146
Summary: ICE in gfc_find_specific_dtio_proc
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99145
Bug ID: 99145
Summary: gfortran LOOP
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85851
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Fixed in trung February 15th, 2021.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96966
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99137
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Schwinge ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> ice-on-invalid-code is when an error should be reported and instead of that
> the compiler crashes.
> ice-on-valid-code is when the code should compile without
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99109
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] ICE: |[9/10 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99137
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
ice-on-invalid-code is when an error should be reported and instead of that the
compiler crashes.
ice-on-valid-code is when the code should compile without errors (perhaps with
warnings, and not considering
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99137
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|openmp |openacc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99142
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
--- Comment #26 from Martin Liška ---
> I see the pattern in libyui-3.12.2 package.
and the second affected package is inkscape:
https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/-/issues/2206
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99128
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99125
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99124
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99122
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
--- Comment #25 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #24)
> I see. Yes, if the types are unrelated, that would be a likely bug. I
> think could and should be diagnosed by the C++ front end, by some more
> targeted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99109
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f72e3d8c9ffb81d25d4fdba10056cd2197e22d64
commit r11-7275-gf72e3d8c9ffb81d25d4fdba10056cd2197e22d64
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99139
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99138
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99104
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99104
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:decd8fb0128870d0d768ba53dae626913d6d9c54
commit r11-7274-gdecd8fb0128870d0d768ba53dae626913d6d9c54
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
95 matches
Mail list logo
