https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103706
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103706
Bug ID: 103706
Summary: [11/12 Regression] ICE: tree check: accessed elt 1 of
'tree_vec' with 0 elts in hash, at
cp/constraint.cc:2503
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58973
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103705
Bug ID: 103705
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected tree that contains 'decl
minimal' structure, have 'array_ref' in
finish_omp_clauses, at cp/semantics.c:7928
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99642
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||GC
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103704
Bug ID: 103704
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class
'type', have 'exceptional' (tree_vec) in
operand_equal_p, at fold-const.c:3011
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103688
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
St
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103697
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:228d64af4e244faabab5c47506920a1bde85d74e
commit r12-5946-g228d64af4e244faabab5c47506920a1bde85d74e
Author: Thomas Schwinge
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103576
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:228d64af4e244faabab5c47506920a1bde85d74e
commit r12-5946-g228d64af4e244faabab5c47506920a1bde85d74e
Author: Thomas Schwinge
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97220
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldionne.2 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102247
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70637
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #1)
> Confirmed. I ran into the same issue with a unit test that was trying to
> test whether a given constructor was `explicit`.
That is PR 97220 which looks like a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84849
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79070
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harry.linxd at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97922
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103703
Bug ID: 103703
Summary: ICE with -Wmismatched-tags
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95807
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 96183 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96183
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55227
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iDingDong at outlook dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100698
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77875
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vanyacpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100039
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88165
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
DR 1352 might be related.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88165
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Hmm, clang also rejects this ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95809
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Alias||cwg2061
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95093
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103604
--- Comment #13 from YunQiang Su ---
And please have a wait, I need to make sure that this patch can work with N32.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103604
--- Comment #12 from YunQiang Su ---
(In reply to YunQiang Su from comment #11)
> (In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #10)
> > (In reply to YunQiang Su from comment #6)
> > >
> > > This patch can solve this problem: of course, we need to back
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103702
Bug ID: 103702
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in update_target_cost_per_stmt, at
config/rs6000/rs6000.c:5457
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87638
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-14
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89237
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103701
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
C++ modules is sadly still in experimental state really.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103701
--- Comment #1 from Jackson Huff ---
Created attachment 51996
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51996&action=edit
The preprocessed file that causes the compiler error
The original file upload failed because the preprocessed s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103701
Bug ID: 103701
Summary: C++20 modules create internal compiler error at
import_export_decl
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89237
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
ICC also rejects it with the same message as GCC even.
MSVC rejects it with:
(9): error C2794: 'type': is not a member of any direct or indirect
base class of 'enable_if'
(9): warning C4305: 'specialization'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86717
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86717
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83371
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83371
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.1.2
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77792
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.1.0, 8.1.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103676
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103676
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Patrick Oppenlander from comment #13)
> That should be the one. Thanks for all the help!
Thanks for the preprocessed source, it made it easier to make the testcase that
was a single file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103676
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is the most reduced testcase, I could make it:
typedef unsigned long long uint64_t;
struct timer {
int active;
uint64_t expire;
void *arg;
};
int irq_disable();
void irq_restore(int);
static inline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103699
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Petr from comment #8)
> So yeah, we can talk about breaking strict aliasing here, but it's just
> inconsistent. I would just expect all functions return the same value.
inconsistent because the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103685
--- Comment #2 from Vitaly Chikunov ---
Created attachment 51995
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51995&action=edit
reproducer created with -save-temps
gost-engine (master *)$ gcc -v -DHAVE_ADDCARRY_U64 -DL_ENDIAN -O2 -g -fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103676
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103676
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103390
--- Comment #3 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 51994
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51994&action=edit
-fdump-tree-original output from test case
Here's the full output from -fdump-tree-original for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103604
--- Comment #11 from YunQiang Su ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #10)
> (In reply to YunQiang Su from comment #6)
> >
> > This patch can solve this problem: of course, we need to back port it to
> > gcc-10/gcc-11 also.
> >
> > The pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103390
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103699
--- Comment #8 from Petr ---
My only problem is that A returns a different value compared to B, C, and D:
uint32_t test_u32_a() {
char array[16] {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15};
writeU64be(array + 6, 0xAABBCCDDEEFF1213);
ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103699
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Petr from comment #6)
> For now I have disabled unaligned load/store optimizations in my projects
> when dealing with GCC 11 and upwards.
As I mentioned you could just add the may_alias attribu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103676
--- Comment #13 from Patrick Oppenlander
---
That should be the one. Thanks for all the help!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103676
--- Comment #12 from Patrick Oppenlander
---
Created attachment 51993
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51993&action=edit
Preprocessed gpt-systick.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103696
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-14
Summary|Lambda fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103682
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103699
--- Comment #6 from Petr ---
For now I have disabled unaligned load/store optimizations in my projects when
dealing with GCC 11 and upwards.
I still think that GCC is wrong in this case regardless of strict aliasing. The
code in func_u32() is e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103700
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the right patch is to check to see if the pointed to type is complete
in pointer_int_sum before calling size_in_bytes_loc. But there is no function
call that is common between the C and C++ front-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103624
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #6)
> We have __builtin_darn_32 for the 32-bit case. The changes for the two
> 64-bit-only interfaces reflect the previous behavior.
No, that has nothing to do w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103676
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> Thanks for those two preprocessed files but it looks like one more is
> needed. Can you attach the one where the definition of timer_monotonic is?
Or rather t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103676
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Thanks for those two preprocessed files but it looks like one more is needed.
Can you attach the one where the definition of timer_monotonic is?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103676
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Oppenlander
---
Created attachment 51992
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51992&action=edit
Preprocessed timer.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103676
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Oppenlander
---
Created attachment 51991
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51991&action=edit
Preprocessed atomic.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103699
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103699
--- Comment #4 from Petr ---
Additional test case:
#include
#include
typedef uint32_t __attribute__((__aligned__(1))) UnalignedUInt32;
typedef uint64_t __attribute__((__aligned__(1))) UnalignedUInt64;
uint32_t byteswap32(uint32_t x) noexcep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103699
--- Comment #3 from Petr ---
BTW this almost seems like an optimizer bug, because if you compile the code
without optimizations with GCC 11 (or with -O1) it also returns the expected
value - only optimized compilation with GCC 11 returns the wro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103699
--- Comment #2 from Petr ---
If you compile this with clang the function test_u32() will corretly return the
expected 0xBBCCDDEE and not 0x0708090A.
If you compile with older GCC, like GCC 10, the test would also return
0xBBCCDDEE. Only GCC-11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103699
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-14
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103700
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
#0 cxx_incomplete_type_diagnostic (loc=2147483649, value=,
type=, diag_kind=DK_ERROR) at
/home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc/gcc/gcc/cp/typeck2.c:311
#1 0x00f384bb in cxx_incomplete_type_error (loc=2147
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103683
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
(x > 1) is expected to raise invalid for a quiet NaN, so the two functions
are different in the absence of -fno-trapping-math, whether or not
signaling NaNs are enabled.
((!__builtin_isna
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103700
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is a C++14 testcase too:
template
auto f(T a) -> decltype(a+1) { return a+1; }
template
auto f(T a) {return a;}
struct Incomplete *p;
auto b = f(p);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101239
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #4)
> The problem seems to be something about over-eager hard-erroring on pointer
> arithmetic with incomplete types, because GCC also rejects this valid code:
I spl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103700
Bug ID: 103700
Summary: Incomplete type not causing constraints to fail
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, rejects-valid
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103699
Bug ID: 103699
Summary: Reading or writing unaligned integers is wrongly
optimized (GCC-11 and up)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103698
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103698
Bug ID: 103698
Summary: [12 regression] Code assigned to
__attribute__((section(".data"))) generates invalid
dwarf: leb128 operand is an undefined symbol
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103676
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Try the following two object files:
/home/patrick/src/apex-examples/apex/sys/kern/timer.cpp
/home/patrick/src/apex-examples/apex/sys/arch/arm/v7em/atomic.cpp
At least attach the preprocessed source for thes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103689
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103676
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Patrick Oppenlander from comment #5)
> I'm a little stuck with trying to reduce this.
>
> The instructions linked say to look at "@/tmp/ccX" to get a list of
> object files of interest. In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103690
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103676
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Oppenlander
---
I'm a little stuck with trying to reduce this.
The instructions linked say to look at "@/tmp/ccX" to get a list of object
files of interest. In this case the lto1 invocation which is failing only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103690
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103697
Bug ID: 103697
Summary: [12 regression]
gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute-loop.f90
fails after r12-5926
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103690
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the -g is important here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102447
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103687
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'll have a look tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103692
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It is probably easier to compare
character(*), parameter :: b(*) = (a(2:1)) ! ICE
vs.
character(*), parameter :: b(*) = a(2:1) ! no ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103692
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-13
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103696
--- Comment #1 from Ivan Machugovskiy ---
Obligatory info dump. I managed to reproduce this on G++ 9.3.0 and G++ 10.3.0
locally, and on G++ trunk on Godbolt (see https://godbolt.org/z/Y5Kr3KfjW).
This is probably a longstanding bug.
$ g++ -v
U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103696
Bug ID: 103696
Summary: Lambda functions are not inlined under certain
optimization pragmas
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103695
Bug ID: 103695
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103694
Bug ID: 103694
Summary: [11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_op, at
fortran/trans-expr.c:3882
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103693
Bug ID: 103693
Summary: [11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_array_dimen_size(): Bad
EXPR_ARRAY expr
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103692
Bug ID: 103692
Summary: [11/12 Regression] ICE in add_init_expr_to_sym, at
fortran/decl.c:2062
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103691
Bug ID: 103691
Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in
get_array_ctor_element_at_index, at fold-const.c:13314
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101239
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
---
=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r12-5936-20211213173013-g16c848090f2-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20211213 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103689
Bug ID: 103689
Summary: Overriding spaceship operator when parent class does
not define spaceship operator for itself
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99531
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a7acb6dca941db2b1c135107dac3a34a20650d5c
commit r12-5944-ga7acb6dca941db2b1c135107dac3a34a20650d5c
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
D
1 - 100 of 214 matches
Mail list logo
