http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52894
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52894
--- Comment #8 from John David Anglin 2012-04-11
04:18:50 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Wed Apr 11 04:18:40 2012
New Revision: 186302
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186302
Log:
PR middle-end/52894
* varasm.c (proce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52922
--- Comment #9 from scott at smedleyfamily dot net 2012-04-11 01:36:13 UTC ---
Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52604
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-11
01:08:12 UTC ---
Note, stylistically, no curly brackets in the if body, and also no NULL, just 0
in C++98. I also note that you are not patching mainline, all the fixes go to
mainline first. Finally, m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #24
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52922
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-11
00:49:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I realise this is off-topic but I would love to know: what is causing this
> limitation?
GCC's "fixincludes" mechanism, which installs modified versions o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #23 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-11
00:30:46 UTC ---
I hadn't got as far as tracking down when it changed - if you're right that
would be quite nice and we'll be able to fix it properly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.1 |---
--- Comment #22 from Alan Modra 2012-04
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30957
m...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52922
--- Comment #7 from scott at smedleyfamily dot net 2012-04-10 23:19:58 UTC ---
Thanks Jonathan,
> No, in general you can't use GCC built for one target on a different target.
I realise this is off-topic but I would love to know: what is causing t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52734
--- Comment #13 from Sedat Dilek 2012-04-10
22:57:15 UTC ---
Just some remarks:
Freetz is an OSS project supporting router (platforms) of a popular German
company. The target-system is mostly MIPS(EL). The majority of our developers
build on AMD
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52734
joerg.jungermann at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joerg.jungermann at gmx do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52930
Bug #: 52930
Summary: quadmath: missing logbq, modfq, nexttowardq, exp2q
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52894
--- Comment #7 from John David Anglin 2012-04-10
22:13:56 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Tue Apr 10 22:13:52 2012
New Revision: 186297
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186297
Log:
PR middle-end/52894
* varasm.c (proce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52894
--- Comment #6 from John David Anglin 2012-04-10
22:11:45 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Tue Apr 10 22:11:38 2012
New Revision: 186296
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186296
Log:
PR middle-end/52894
* varasm.c (proce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52918
--- Comment #5 from B. Scott Michel 2012-04-10
21:31:13 UTC ---
I deduced that add_bb_to_loop and a null bb->loop_father meant that the
enclosing basic block was either missing or incorrectly annotated. The fix,
however, is not obvious without ge
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52918
--- Comment #4 from B. Scott Michel 2012-04-10
21:28:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 27128
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27128
Preprocessed eh_alloc.cc, for reference
Per request, preprocessed source attached.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43366
Andrew Benson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abenson at caltech dot edu
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52927
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed|1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52929
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52900
--- Comment #4 from gccBugs at haatschii dot de 2012-04-10 20:37:36 UTC ---
To large to attach it directly:
http://haatschii.de/preprocessed_source.cpp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52929
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52929
ncahill_alt at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ncahill_alt at yahoo dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52929
Bug #: 52929
Summary: use of undeclared identifier '__ATOMIC_ACQ_REL'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52927
--- Comment #7 from Jonatan GOebel
2012-04-10 18:24:55 UTC ---
props project: http://procps.sourceforge.net/index.html
Hi, I attached the i and the S files from the source code that causes the
program to stuck.
And this is the only warning in t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52927
--- Comment #6 from Jonatan GOebel
2012-04-10 18:17:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 27127
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27127
compiled sorce file.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52927
--- Comment #5 from Jonatan GOebel
2012-04-10 18:16:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 27126
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27126
S file compiled without -Os flag
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52927
--- Comment #4 from Jonatan GOebel
2012-04-10 18:15:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 27125
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27125
S file compiled with -Os flag
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52927
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak 2012-04-10 17:52:52
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Please follow instructions at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#report on how to provide
all required information.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52890
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #14 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-04-10
17:07:22 UTC ---
Richard G., or perhaps another aliasing expert. I am working on a patch for
this problem. Could you pontificate as to why no optimization pass has been
able to figure out that g_2_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52924
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jpr at essi dot fr |
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52476
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52890
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed|1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-10
15:36:40 UTC ---
You're quite right, my apologies for telling you that wouldn't happen.
In bits/shared_ptr_base.h we have:
template<>
inline void
_Sp_counted_base<_S_atomic>::
_M_ad
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48496
--- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou 2012-04-10
15:29:46 UTC ---
> > ;; Note that while this accepts mem, it only accepts non-volatile mem,
> > ;; and so cannot be "fixed" by adjusting the address. Thus it cannot
> > ;; and does not use define_mem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52604
--- Comment #7 from Laurent Aflonsi 2012-04-10
15:28:07 UTC ---
Ping ? Here is the patch proposed.
--- libstdc++-v3/src/mt_allocator.cc2011/08/04 07:56:492064
+++ libstdc++-v3/src/mt_allocator.cc2012/04/0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52473
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52927
--- Comment #2 from Jonatan GOebel
2012-04-10 15:14:53 UTC ---
The ps code calls the funcion "set_personality()"
This function ends with a
"goto *(found->jump);"
this goto jump to
" case_unknown:"
do some stuffs and returns NULL.
And the prog
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #19 from Alan Modra 2012-04-10 15:13:24
UTC ---
I think I was on the right track when I questioned whether the problem might be
mixing atomics and mutex protected ops, but was looking in the wrong place. I
should have looked at defau
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52634
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka 2012-04-10
15:09:27 UTC ---
Fixed on mainline, will backport the fix if no problems shows up.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52722
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-10 14:49:37
UTC ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/msg00320.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45116
ging...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44003
ging...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
ith: ../configure --with-libelf=/usr/local --enable-lto
--prefix=/home/regehr/z/compiler-install/gcc-r186257-install
--program-prefix=r186257- --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120410 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44000
ging...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44242
ging...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44279
ging...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44005
ging...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52908
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak 2012-04-10 13:49:02
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Created attachment 27117 [details]
> Proposed patch
Michael, can you please test this patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
--- Comment #15 from Florian Fainelli 2012-04-10
13:39:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Author: rth
> Date: Fri Mar 30 18:00:37 2012
> New Revision: 186018
>
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186018
> Log:
> PR debug/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52928
ging...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||alpha64-dec-openvms
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52928
Bug #: 52928
Summary: Alpha/VMS: c++ triggers gas errors
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52888
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-10
13:20:55 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 10 13:20:50 2012
New Revision: 186276
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186276
Log:
2012-04-10 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52888
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Component|rtl-optimi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52927
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52927
Bug #: 52927
Summary: "procps" do not work with -Os flag.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52924
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-10
12:55:40 UTC ---
another testcase showing a similar bug:
#include
template
struct Alloc : std::allocator
{
template struct rebind { typedef Alloc other; };
template Alloc(const Alloc&) {
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52923
--- Comment #4 from Fredrik Hederstierna
2012-04-10 12:52:36 UTC ---
Maybe it have advantages to have a "pointer-deref" analysis pass rather than a
"point-to" analysis pass. Then GCC could warn only if the pointer is being
dereferenced for real,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52926
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52923
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52918
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52920
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52835
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||garfieldsk at gmail dot com
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52918
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |target
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52912
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52911
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.3.6
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52907
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48496
--- Comment #21 from Ulrich Weigand 2012-04-10
12:16:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> and the matching alternative would be (f, Q) with
>
> ;; Note that while this accepts mem, it only accepts non-volatile mem,
> ;; and so cannot be "fixe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52906
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52900
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52894
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52891
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52890
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52888
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52921
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52886
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52881
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52917
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-10
11:23:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Ok, I didn't know about the defect report and resolution yet.
> I must admit that I quite like the syntax.
It's a peculiarity of the C++ grammar, the fun
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52870
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52870
--- Comment #3 from Ulrich Weigand 2012-04-10
10:56:17 UTC ---
Author: uweigand
Date: Tue Apr 10 10:56:11 2012
New Revision: 186272
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186272
Log:
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/52870
* t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52926
Bug #: 52926
Summary: gcc 4.7.0 20120324: wrong optimized asm code produced
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52925
Bart Van Assche changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bart.vanassche at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52916
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52924
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52916
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52917
--- Comment #3 from freunddeslichts at web dot de 2012-04-10 09:54:28 UTC ---
Ok, I didn't know about the defect report and resolution yet.
I must admit that I quite like the syntax.
I added a remark about the defect and a short example to
http:/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52887
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-10
09:12:39 UTC ---
we might need an explicit instantiation of that type in libstdc++.so, I'll
investigate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52922
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-10
09:11:03 UTC ---
No, in general you can't use GCC built for one target on a different target.
What I do is just build the same version of GCC with the exact same
configuration on each OS I need to t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52924
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52925
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-10
08:40:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 27124
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27124
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52925
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.3.6
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52925
Bug #: 52925
Summary: [4.5/4.6 Regression] var-tracking never terminates
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52924
Bug #: 52924
Summary: Using an std::function object as deleter of shared_ptr
in C++0x mode does not compile
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52922
--- Comment #5 from scott at smedleyfamily dot net 2012-04-10 08:13:44 UTC ---
H, you are right. I was compiling gcc with a version of gcc built on Centos
5.6. (though I compiled Andrew's test program with a different "native"
version)
I would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52923
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-10
08:03:13 UTC ---
See also PR 49974 requesting the same thing for C++
and PR 51270 and PR 44859 are similar but for temporaries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52923
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-10
07:59:40 UTC ---
These all need to have some kind of flow analysis going on (the return one is
the only one which does not which is why we warn already).
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo