https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116801
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116886
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #0)
> If I read J3/23-007 16.9.138 correctly, the following program should
> print the minimum integer value, twice, but it prints nothing:
>
> program memain
> impl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116801
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin ---
gcc's invoke.texi looks like:
@opindex fpic
@cindex global offset table
@cindex PIC
@item -fpic
whereas gfortran's invoke.texi has:
@opindex @code{ffree-form}
@opindex @code{ffixed-form}
@cindex options,
: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
There seems to be many options missing in fortran's lang.opt.urls.
A possible problem is the presence of nested tags in the source of
fortran's Option-Index.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116359
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116196
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 58971
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58971&action=edit
Draft patch
This fixes the testcase.
But the testcase is by far insufficient to thoroughly check the correctnes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116196
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin ---
More complete testcase:
! { dg-do run }
! { dg-additional-options "-fdump-tree-original" }
!
! PR fortran/116196
MODULE m
IMPLICIT NONE
INTEGER, TARGET :: arr(5)
END MODULE m
PROGRAM main
USE m
IMP
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Consider this:
program p
contains
subroutine s
contains
subroutine x
end subroutine x
end subroutine s
end program
It is rejected, but I couldn't find what i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101919
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116196
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin ---
Draft patch:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/dependency.cc b/gcc/fortran/dependency.cc
index 15edf1af9df..348fd562ef6 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/dependency.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/dependency.cc
@@ -1253,11 +1253,8 @@ ch
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following example outputs:
1 1 2 3 5
while I think it should output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #23 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #21)
>
> (...) and should be able to submit the first
> series (inline minloc without dim argument) this week.
>
I missed the "this week" mark (again), but I've finall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #21 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #20)
> Hi Mikael,
>
> I did regression testing on x86_64 and AArch64 and only found one test-ism.
>
> I think I understand most of the patch to be able to deal with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99798
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115689
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102619
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin ---
I'm working on it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114922
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111293
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin ---
For what's worth adding -fno-tree-vrp "fixes" this and enables removal of the
call to 'foo' with trunk.
Here is a minimal revert of the regressing revision, but it may just make the
problem latent.
diff --g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111293
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92178
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|mikael at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114475
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107426
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107426
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Mor
at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #1)
> > I suspect this commit here,
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103472
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105547
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105547
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 57739
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57739&action=edit
Patch fixing the problem
This small patch fixes the problem.
Unfortunately allowing more errors seems counter-p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #8)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #7)
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr98016.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
> > Excess errors:
> > /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #6)
> I need to reevaluate it; there were other regressions if I remember
> correctly.
The changes are these:
PASS->FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/pr107865.f90 -O (test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 57571
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57571&action=edit
Tentative patch
(In reply to anlauf from comment #5)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> > Thus I suggest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114141
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #5)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #4)
>
> > (In reply to kargl from comment #3)
> > > Yep, agreed. I went back an re-read the section about ASSOCIATE.
> > > Not su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114141
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113799
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.5.0, 11.4.0, 12.3.0,
||2024-02-07
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin ---
Reduced:
module m
implicit none
real, parameter :: inf = real(z'7F80')
real, parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86656
Bug 86656 depends on bug 111291, which changed state.
Bug 111291 Summary: ASAN error: heap-use-after-free gcc/fortran/parse.cc:359 in
decode_statement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111291
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111291
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113377
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
>
> Note that the following scalar example also fails:
>
"Fortunately", it is invalid. :-)
>From 15.5.2.12 (Argument presence and restrictions on arguments not present
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113377
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #2)
> Note that adding a scalar call in function one:
>
> r(1) = two (i(1), j)
>
> generates sane code:
>
> *((integer(kind=4) *) __result.0 + (sizetype) ((offset.1 +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46244
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|mikael at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113377
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin ---
Mine, I guess.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113152
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #16 from Mikael Morin ---
This missed the gcc stage 1 deadline, but I'm still working on it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112412
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112371
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-08
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin ---
Patches submitted (and accepted):
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2023-November/059904.html
|1
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-08
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
Component|fortran |libfortran
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin ---
Patches submitted (and accepted
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Non-masked reduction functions work, but their masked variant don't allocate if
the result is empty, so the r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112371
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin ---
Possible culprit:
ifunction.m4 has this code:
retarray->base_addr = xmallocarray (alloc_size, sizeof (rtype_name));
if (alloc_size == 0)
{
/* Make sure we have a zero-sized arra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112371
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin ---
If dim == 3, the ubound and shape are (/ 9, 3, 7 /) as expected.
That is, the problem only arises if the resulting array is empty.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112371
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #0)
> i = 1
> (...)
> r = sum(a, dim=i)
If i is inlined, that is
r = sum(a, dim=1)
the shape and ubound are (/ 3, 0, 7 /) as expected.
The difference is p
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
In the following example, I expect the ubound to be (/ 3, 0, 7 /), but the
printed values are (/ 0, 0, 7 /).
program
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56094|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin ---
I'm trying to remove the formal_arg_flag global variables, which seem to just
disable all the checks on dummy arguments.
Unfortunately, it regresses a bit, say pr101026.f for example can be simplified
to thi
at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin ---
I'm on it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #13 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #12)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #11)
> > Created attachment 56094 [details]
> > Improved patch
> >
> > This improved patch (still single argument only)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56091|0 |1
is obsolete|
|NEW
Keywords||patch
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-12
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin ---
Confirmed.
This should fix it:
diff --git a/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #8)
> (...) that is it was using too loops in a row in some cases.
>
... *two* loops in a row ...
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #9)
>
> Thanks Mikael!
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 56091
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56091&action=edit
Rough patch
Here is a rough patch to make the scalarizer support minloc calls.
It regresses on minloc_1.f90 at l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107716
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110996
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108957
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108957
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110996
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org, dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org,
gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org,
P.Schaffnit at access dot rwth-aachen.de
|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> Mikael,
>
> are you still onto it?
Thank
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89891
Bug 89891 depends on bug 48776, which changed state.
Bug 48776 Summary: ICE(segfault) after -std=f95 diagnostic error involving
PROCEDURE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48776
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48776
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin ---
All the testcases here have been fixed by the fix for pr48776.
Closing as duplicate.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 48776 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48776
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #10 from Mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110996
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48776
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48776
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #6)
> Can't reproduce with a recent master (14.0.0 20230814).
Sorry, missed the -std=f95 flag.
Confirmed on recent master.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48776
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86657
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68152
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110996
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #7)
> Do you have a solution that we can fix RISC-V backend?
No, this is not RISC-V specific.
> Or you will fix it in Fortran front-end?
Yes, the fix will have to be in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110996
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #5)
> Here sym->formal_ns is NULL because the symbol C has not been completely
> setup.
This makes the following an "obvious" fix:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/decl.cc b/g
|NEW
Last reconfirmed||2023-08-17
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin ---
Confirmed on the reduced example from comment #2.
The problem arises because of the bogus subroutine statement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
--- Comment #42 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #41)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #40)
> > Harald, I have just closed the followup PR110419.
> > I think this PR can be closed as well, or is there something left
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
--- Comment #40 from Mikael Morin ---
Harald, I have just closed the followup PR110419.
I think this PR can be closed as well, or is there something left to be done?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #19 from Mikael Morin ---
Patch submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2023-August/059666.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/626870.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419
--- Comment #18 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 55662
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55662&action=edit
Updated tentative patch
This fixes comment #4 as well, but the failure on value_9 remains on 32 bit
powerpc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419
--- Comment #17 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 55660
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55660&action=edit
Update function type patch
This patch changes the dummy argument declaration type.
It changes the dump as foll
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87142
Bug 87142 depends on bug 110618, which changed state.
Bug 110618 Summary: Dependency between arguments when one is allocatable array
whose dummy is intent(out)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110618
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110618
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419
--- Comment #15 from Mikael Morin ---
rs6000_pass_by_reference returns true with -m32, and false with -m64.
So the second argument is passed by reference with -m32, and by value with
-m64.
So the code in val looks right, it is the code in p cal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92178
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin ---
Patches submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2023-July/059596.html
https://gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99798
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110618
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 55517
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55517&action=edit
Draft patch
This seems to work for this case, but I'm not sure how reliable it is.
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: abensonca at gcc dot gnu.org, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org,
burnus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
1 - 100 of 971 matches
Mail list logo
