https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94239
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87583
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
commit 68dd57808f7c0147acdb5ca72c88ff655afcb0ce
Author: Carl Love
Date: Fri Mar 20 18:15:05 2020 -0500
rs6000: Add command line and builtin compatibility check
2020-03-20 Carl Love
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93435
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] Hang|[8/9 Regression] Hang with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93435
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29f23ed79b60949fc60f6fdbbd931bd58090b241
commit r10-7309-g29f23ed79b60949fc60f6fdbbd931bd58090b241
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=553
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markd at kermodei dot com
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94244
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94244
Bug ID: 94244
Summary: std::sort corrupts memory
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92955
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|11.0
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. La
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91028
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94243
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94243
Bug ID: 94243
Summary: Missed C++ front-end devirtualizations from Clang
testsuite
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94242
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94242
Bug ID: 94242
Summary: filesystem::path::generic_string() only works with
std::allocator
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93347
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92894
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-20
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94241
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93347
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:72b3bc895f023bf451357659cfe96c966945bdf9
commit r10-7306-g72b3bc895f023bf451357659cfe96c966945bdf9
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Fri Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92894
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cjdb.ns at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82898
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48075
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48075&action=edit
gcc10-pr92264-wip.patch
Updated patch, which doesn't ICE anymore, and creates 10500 instead of 12000
VALUEs du
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88433
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94238
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Got it. simplify-rtx does not validate that a comparison opcode it simplifies
to is valid for the mode.Fixing looks trivial. Unfortunately something
happened overnight that is causing regressions all o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93621
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Some incremental progress, but still ICEs...
--- gcc/cselib.c2020-03-20 17:42:02.333023994 +0100
+++ gcc/cselib.c2020-03-20 19:23:33.506622424 +0100
@@ -58,6 +58,16 @@
static void cselib_inv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94238
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Just getting started here. But at least CSE seems to be doing exactly what we
want.
We have this going into cse1:
(insn 15 14 16 4 (set (mem/c:SI (symbol_ref:DI ("c") [flags 0x2] ) [1 c+0 S4 A32])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67960
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103
>
> --- Comment #15 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94241
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Component|libstdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94241
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
#include
int main()
{
struct s { int m; };
s r[] = { s{0}, s{1}, s{2}, s{3} };
std::ranges::find_if(r, [](auto const) { return true; });
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103
--- Comment #15 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #14)
> From a language Pov that's the same.
> But memcpy and friends work on any dynamic type so have to copy all bytes.
Sorry, I don't understand. Bug 6187
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94241
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Di Bella ---
Created attachment 48074
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48074&action=edit
Temp for minimal repro
ing local type
'main()::s', is used but never defined [-fpermissive]
669 | indirect_result_t<_Proj&, _Iter> operator*() const; // not
defined
|
```
# System info
OS: Ubuntu 18.04 (WSL)
Version: gcc (GCC) 10.0.1 20200320 (experimental)
Git hash:
Configured with: ../
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94240
Bug ID: 94240
Summary: [D] lto1: internal compiler error: in
add_symbol_to_partition_1, at lto/lto-partition.c:215
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90880
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94217
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92264
--- Comment #31 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48073
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48073&action=edit
gcc10-pr92264-wip.patch
WIP patch to try special casing cselib handling of stack pointer VALUEs.
The intent is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69694
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69694
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a23eff1bd04ebdca503376ae6198d95c737dc3de
commit r10-7304-ga23eff1bd04ebdca503376ae6198d95c737dc3de
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94238
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Middle end is asking:
(gdb) up
#3 0x01621333 in simplify_set (x=0x7fffea968a68) at
/home/uros/git/gcc/gcc/combine.c:6938
6938compare_mode = SELECT_CC_MODE (new_code, op0, op1);
(gdb) p new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94237
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
One possible workaround can be not calling get_variable_section for Darwin. It
will cause not so precise section information which is not critical.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On March 20, 2020 5:29:24 PM GMT+01:00, ch3root at openwall dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103
>
>--- Comment #13 from Alexander Cherepanov
>---
>(In reply to rgu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94237
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-apple-darwin*
--- Comment #1 from I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94239
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103
--- Comment #13 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> I think if the user writes a long double store then padding becomes
> undefined so the testcase in comment#1 in PR61872 is technically
> undefined IM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91027
ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94239
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
-pc-solaris2.11
Between 20200319 (f22712bd8a2ed57d3cc7e6fa92730bd5852e27b3) and 20200320
(719c864225e28c33a0737a331a772781ce8e6591), two tests regressed on Solaris
11/x86
(32-bit only):
+FAIL: gcc.dg/pr20245-1.c (internal compiler error)
+FAIL: gcc.dg/pr20245-1.c (test for excess errors)
Excess
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91027
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b5446d0cc09e6a931065b98101d799711fd5b035
commit r10-7302-gb5446d0cc09e6a931065b98101d799711fd5b035
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Fri M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94217
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #12)
> Also confirmed on x86_64.
Can you confirm it's not fixed with g:7d4549b2cd209eb621453ce13be7ffd84ffa720a?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94236
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Do you have a source where you run into a relocation overflowing?
Or is there a specific reason why you need long calls here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94238
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-20
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94238
Bug ID: 94238
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in ix86_cc_mode, at
config/i386/i386.c:15285 since
r10-7268-g529ea7d9596b26ba
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94217
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94236
--- Comment #3 from Aron ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> -mcmodel=large does not control long calls.
Sadly, aarch64 lacks -mlong-calls which I use on armv7, therefore I thought
based on the specification -mcmodel=large would ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94072
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94236
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
A patch for -mlong-calls was posted a long time ago but never made it in:
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg02933.html
You should not need -mlong-calls really because the linker should ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94072
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1aa22b1916a493ac46453d96e0c78ca47bcaeda3
commit r10-7301-g1aa22b1916a493ac46453d96e0c78ca47bcaeda3
Author: Richard Sandiford
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94237
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-20
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94237
Bug ID: 94237
Summary: [10 regression] Many (100s) of new LTO fails on Darwin
targets
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94233
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94236
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
-mcmodel=large does not control long calls.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94230
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
I'm not sure this has a changed a lot "recently"; I did 2-3 years ago IIRC.
The warning occurs when we have location_t > LINE_MAP_MAX_LOCATION_WITH_COLS
which means that we've run out of values for expressin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94234
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
The closest we have is
/* (A * C) +- (B * C) -> (A+-B) * C and (A * C) +- A -> A * (C+-1).
which does not handle conversions, although it should be possible to add them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94236
Bug ID: 94236
Summary: -mcmodel=large does not work on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 92816, which changed state.
Bug 92816 Summary: [10 Regression] 35% performance drop for 433.milc with -O2
-flto on znver1 since r278879
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92816
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92816
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91634
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 91634, which changed state.
Bug 91634 Summary: [10 Regression] 508.namd_r (and 435.gromacs) speed
regression after r274994
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91634
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94230
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94230
--- Comment #4 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> We do not want to use 64-bit number for that, it is used everywhere in the
> compiler and would cause massive growth of compile time memory.
understa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94230
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
We do not want to use 64-bit number for that, it is used everywhere in the
compiler and would cause massive growth of compile time memory.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94230
--- Comment #2 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> The size limitation is given from the way columns, lines, blocks and
> location ranges are encoded in location_t, which is a 32-bit number.
> See libc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103
--- Comment #12 from Andreas Schwab ---
The values of any padding bits are unspecified.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103
>
> --- Comment #10 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
> The case of assignment+memcpy --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61872
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93270
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||coleb at eyesopen dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94026
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wdijkstr at arm dot com
--- Comment #5 from Wilc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94123
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94234
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94123
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94235
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94103
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
The case of assignment+memcpy -- testcases in comment 0, in pr92824 and similar
-- is fixed.
But the case of memset+assignment -- pr93270 and pr61872 (these seem to be
dups) -- is not fixed. Is it su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94217
--- Comment #11 from Tamar Christina ---
At least on aarch64, I haven't tried x86_64 yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94217
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94223
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Note the code is the same on the GCC 9 branch so the issue must be latent maybe
with different testcases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94186
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94123
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94044
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93053
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Component|libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94034
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93465
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
-
$ gcc -std=c11 -pedantic -Wall -Wextra test.c && ./a.out
$ gcc -std=c11 -pedantic -Wall -Wextra -O3 test.c && ./a.out
1222
--
gcc x86-64 version: gcc (GCC) 10.0.1 20200320 (experimental)
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92640
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Also in GCC 4.0.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69373
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-08-06 00:00:00 |2020-3-20
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94235
Bug ID: 94235
Summary: worse debug info with O0 than with O2 with flto
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92640
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-11-26 00:00:00 |2020-3-20
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94234
Bug ID: 94234
Summary: missed ccp folding for (addr + 8 * n) - (addr + 8 * (n
- 1))
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58601
Bug 58601 depends on bug 69089, which changed state.
Bug 69089 Summary: C++11: alignas(0) causes an error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69089
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69089
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
