http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49220
Summary: ICE in create_pre_exit, at mode-switching.c:401
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49219
Summary: [c++0x] comparing unordered containers illegally
require key compare
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49218
Summary: Incorrect optimization of a 'for' loop creates an
infinite loop
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49217
Summary: Wrong optimization of code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49105
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wsf at fultondesigns dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44920
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47687
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wb at fnal dot gov
--- Comment #5 from Ja
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45167
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47277
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46124
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49190
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-05-28 22:29:00 UTC ---
> Might be best to revert the patch for now?
Especially in the light of comment #3:
> Ugh. I do not have time to deal with this problem at the moment.
Anyway I did not wait
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49215
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46124
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-28
22:01:44 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat May 28 22:01:38 2011
New Revision: 174386
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174386
Log:
PR c++/46124
* parser.c (cp_parser_lambda_e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47277
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-28
22:01:32 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat May 28 22:01:28 2011
New Revision: 174385
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174385
Log:
PR c++/47277
* parser.c (cp_parser_pseudo_d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45786
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49216
Summary: [C++0x][Regression] ICE on compiling new-expression
with braced-init-list for arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49207
--- Comment #4 from hanib at ece dot ubc.ca 2011-05-28 21:21:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I think you have an aliasing problem in your code.
The code I am compiling is the Perlbench benchmark from SPEC-CPU2006. If I
compile the code for a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47601
--- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-05-28 21:15:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> Here is an updated patch: ...
It passes my tests. Thanks.
Just one question:
+ if (q)
+associate_integer_pointer (p, q);
What happe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45345
--- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-28 21:16:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> No -- as in this, this isn't unused, ought not be deprecated.
> You mentioned 32bit mips/a.out -- sure, maybe that is unused.
> I assume a.ou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49210
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49209
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49190
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerald at pfeifer dot com
--- Comment #9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49190
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-05-28
20:42:16 UTC ---
This also caused all the ICE on regress (ppc-darwin9, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-05/msg03217.html ).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49215
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49215
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-28
20:34:00 UTC ---
should be fixed at 174384
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49215
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL:
20_util/pointer_traits/pointer_to.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49214
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Broken pipe in backtrace for
x86_64-apple-darwin10
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45345
--- Comment #6 from Jay 2011-05-28 19:47:42 UTC
---
No -- as in this, this isn't unused, ought not be deprecated.
You mentioned 32bit mips/a.out -- sure, maybe that is unused.
I assume a.out is almost unused across the board.
But 64bit mips/elf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49196
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-28
19:45:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (who do not want to update to a GPLv3 GCC release).
Boy, this is the most insane (and funny, because I don't care much about
FreeBSD anyway) thing I learned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45345
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-28 19:38:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> No -- this is mips64. OpenBSD uses it -- loongson.
Sorry, what are you saying "no" to? To be clear,
by "the port", I meant mips*-*-openbsd*.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45345
--- Comment #4 from Jay 2011-05-28 19:20:51 UTC
---
No -- this is mips64. OpenBSD uses it -- loongson.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45786
--- Comment #7 from neil.n.carlson at gmail dot com 2011-05-28 18:14:04 UTC ---
So what is the status of this defect? It would appear to be "will not fix".
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49213
Summary: [OOP] gfortran rejects structure constructor
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49103
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-05-28 17:56:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> My understanding is: It's a middle-end bug, which got exposed by Rev. 169083,
> but which can occur also with other C, C++ or Fortran code.
> A prop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47601
--- Comment #23 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-28 17:47:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> [macbook] f90/bug% gfc
> /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/typebound_proc_12.f90
> f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49212
Summary: targparm.ad[bs]: Runtime Library Exception in spec but
not corresponding body
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47601
--- Comment #22 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-05-28 16:38:18 UTC ---
If I did not do any mistake, the patch in comment #21 fixes this PR (AFAICT),
but cause the following regression (on x86_64-apple-darwin10 with -m32):
[macbook] f90/bug% gfc
/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49201
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-05-28 16:30:32
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Please provide full command line option.
>
> g++ -g attachment.cpp ?
Please try revision 174380.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49112
--- Comment #8 from John 2011-05-28 16:28:15 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > SAVE can be either a statement or an attribute. When it's statement, it
> > affects all the variables within the containing unit
>
> Ye
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48982
--- Comment #6 from Nicolai Stange 2011-05-28
15:48:41 UTC ---
> Can you test whether this works on 4.6?
Works like a charm with gcc-4.6.0 release (without any diffs applied).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47601
--- Comment #21 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-28 15:23:22 UTC ---
Improved patch, makes the original test case work:
Index: gcc/fortran/module.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/module.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47589
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-28
15:22:30 UTC ---
*** Bug 47588 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47588
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47588
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-28
15:20:42 UTC ---
*** Bug 47587 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47587
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47601
--- Comment #20 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-28
15:12:26 UTC ---
Valgrind shows:
==9238== Invalid read of size 8
==9238==at 0x55AFD9: gfc_use_derived (symbol.c:1942)
==9238==by 0x55B126: gfc_find_component (symbol.c:2002)
==9238==by 0x5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47601
--- Comment #19 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-28 15:05:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> With the patch in comment #17, the "mio_component_ref(): Component not found"
> are gone, but compiling gyre_lanr.f90 in the original code gives
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47587
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47588
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48984
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49109
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49191
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49211
Nils Asmussen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49211
Summary: MMIX: Code generation broken, when using global
variables
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49195
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #8 from William J
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47601
--- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-05-28 14:27:18 UTC ---
With the patch in comment #17, the "mio_component_ref(): Component not found"
are gone, but compiling gyre_lanr.f90 in the original code gives a
segmentation fault:
[macbook]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49201
--- Comment #2 from dcb 2011-05-28 14:26:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Please provide full command line option.
g++ -g attachment.cpp ?
‘Einfo.Is_String_Type.Part’:
../../gcc/ada/einfo.adb:6377:4: error: invalid conversion in gimple call
boolean
einfo__b___XDLU_0__1
# .MEM_50 = VDEF <.MEM_49>
iftmp.45_26 = einfo.is_string_type.part (id_1(D));
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.7.0 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49199
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47601
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49201
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49196
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49199
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49200
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49087
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49201
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49203
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-28
12:57:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Looks like LIM is only able to hoist invariants rather than push down
> invariants. It can push down invariant stores though.
Indeed. code-sinking (in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49208
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49190
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsg at openbsd dot org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49209
Summary: Solaris10/SPARC: gcc.c has unresolved references to
fatal() while linking xgcc and cpp
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47601
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49190
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-05-28
12:16:38 UTC ---
PR49208 is likely a duplicate of this PR.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49208
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-05-28
12:15:53 UTC ---
This looks like a duplicate of pr49190.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49174
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-28
12:13:06 UTC ---
Besides which, we *are* following it to the letter, see 1.9 [intro.execution]
paragraph 1 and the accompanying footnote
5) This provision is sometimes called the “as-if” rule, becau
stem-zlib --disable-libmudflap --disable-libgomp --disable-tls
--with-as=/usr/bin/as --with-ld=/usr/bin/ld --with-gnu-ld --with-gnu-as
--enable-threads=posix --enable-wchar_t --disable-lto --enable-languages=c,c++
--with-gmp=/usr/local --with-mpfr=/usr/local
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20110528 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49174
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-28
12:01:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> What's so bad about following the ISO specification to the letter?
Because it makes absolutely no difference except to those who maintain the
code, and we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43995
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44944
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43995
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||graham.gower at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45541
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49103
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44944
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||viriketo at gmail dot com
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49103
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-05-28
11:08:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Ugh, the problem is that first cunrolli unrolls the loop, so we get among
> other things parm.9 initialized for printing fgrades_35, then
> _gfortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49112
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-28 10:53:18 UTC ---
Here is a reduced test case for the ICE:
module datetime_mod
implicit none
private
type :: DateTime
contains
procedure :: getFormattedString
en
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48679
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49112
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49112
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Missing type-bound |[4.6/4.7 Regression] [OOP]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45541
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47995
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45541
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jipeng at broadcom dot com
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49207
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2011-05-28
09:32:38 UTC ---
I think you have an aliasing problem in your code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49145
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49174
--- Comment #6 from Frank Kingswood
2011-05-28 08:41:05 UTC ---
What's so bad about following the ISO specification to the letter?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19155
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
URL|http://gcc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45345
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49200
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #1 from Ir
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20215
--- Comment #10 from licheng.1212 at gmail dot com 2011-05-28 07:45:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Confirmed, the gij problem has been fixed by the patches above, this only
> leaves the java front-end
> problem.
Why ony gij can fixed?
ho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49195
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49197
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49195
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rmansfield at qnx dot com
--- Comm
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
