https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117890
--- Comment #1 from Hu Lin ---
Wrong behavior:
$ gcc-m64 -o case -O2 -march=x86-64-v3case.c
-fvect-cost-model=unlimited
$ ./case
0
Correct behavior:
$ gcc-m64 -o case -O2 -march=x86-64-v3case.c
$ ./case
4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117890
Bug ID: 117890
Summary: Wrong code with -fvect-cost-model=unlimited
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117006
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|liuhongt at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117885
--- Comment #2 from Schrodinger ZHU Yifan ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> The 'GIMPLE' doesn't look like GIMPLE.
The GIMPLE is the unmodified GIMPLE obtained from GCCJIT’s dump_initial_gimple
option. The variable name such
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117888
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> The question is how we should define innermost - consider
>
> - loop interchange
> - inlining of a function body with a loop into a loop
>
> the simplest appr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117876
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 59772
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59772&action=edit
incomplete patch
Tried this one, but still some callers are broken. Need to revisit during
stage1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117860
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117889
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117888
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
The question is how we should define innermost - consider
- loop interchange
- inlining of a function body with a loop into a loop
the simplest approach might be to flag the innermost loop as written by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117887
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117874
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:be8d1a358e3abc50c14a1d7b1cfee82fe6f6aa3c
commit r15-5876-gbe8d1a358e3abc50c14a1d7b1cfee82fe6f6aa3c
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117885
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117881
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Maybe specifically emit an extra 'note' for middle-end warnings in general when
-fsanitize= is used? I'd avoid cluttering FE warnings that are not affected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117888
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117006
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> > So if anything, one would need to decide this on something larger rather
> > than small testcases, say build the whol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117887
--- Comment #13 from Sam James ---
Thanks a lot. I've sent
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtwebengine-chromium/+/608812 to qt. I
may send it to chromium too but it's a pain to clone.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117889
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Trying to reduce it but not convinced it'll turn out useful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117889
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
https://dev.gentoo.org/~sam/bugs/gcc/117889/core_jumbo_174_gcc14.ii.xz
https://dev.gentoo.org/~sam/bugs/gcc/117889/core_jumbo_174_gcc15.ii.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117889
Bug ID: 117889
Summary: [15 regression] Failure to build qtwebengine-6.8.1
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117887
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> The workaround is to place the requires outside of the template type alias.
I tested this with the original preprocessed source and there was no ICE with
it e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117887
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
The workaround is to place the requires outside of the template type alias.
That is replace:
```
// If the compare is not transparent we want to construct key_type once.
template
using KeyTypeOrK =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117887
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Maybe r11-3261 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117887
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
The history of
https://github.com/chromium/chromium/commits/main/base/containers/flat_tree.h
has a few GCC workarounds coming and going over the years.
And presumably started with
https://github.com/chromium/ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117887
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note chromium source changed here:
https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/872ad7d45da9c88ff23d052d3bcf9a2b80180faf
I suspect the new version of qtwebengine picked up the latest sources from
chr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117314
Yibo He changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117887
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Are you sure this is a regression? and not just the code changed which
> exposed the failure?
>
No, I think you're right.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117887
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.5.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117887
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Are you sure this is a regression? and not just the code changed which exposed
the failure?
My reduced testcase which looks not too far off the original is failing even in
GCC 11.4.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117887
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59771
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59771&action=edit
Reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117283
Yibo He changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117887
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59770
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59770&action=edit
First step in reduction
not done much manual reducing yet. mostly just delta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117888
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
This is the case which failed the recogonize innermost correctly.
typedef unsigned short ggml_fp16_t;
static float table_f32_f16[1 << 16];
inline static float ggml_lookup_fp16_to_fp32(ggml_fp16_t f) {
un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117888
Bug ID: 117888
Summary: cunrolli doesn't accurately remember what's
"innermost"
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117887
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
reducing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117887
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117887
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 59769
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59769&action=edit
base_jumbo_49.ii.xz
thout-isl --enable-default-pie --enable-host-pie
--enable-host-bind-now --enable-default-ssp --disable-fixincludes
--with-build-config='bootstrap-O3 bootstrap-lto'
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 15.0.0 20241202 (experimental)
cde7ce0628f66a5d03
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107980
--- Comment #18 from Joseph S. Myers ---
The final normative wording in C23 says "If any additional arguments expand to
include unbalanced parentheses, or a preprocessing token that does not convert
to a token, the
behavior is undefined." (and t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107849
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Schrodinger ZHU Yifan from comment #2)
> I think this is now addressed by the addition of get_target_builtin.
except it broke asan support, see PR 117886.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117886
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107849
Schrodinger ZHU Yifan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i at zhuyi dot fan
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117878
--- Comment #4 from Li Pan ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #3)
> Generally, yes, I guess. But I'd like to understand better what exactly is
> going wrong. Shouldn't emitting those "pre-RA" insns already be guarded
> properly? I haven
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117883
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117886
--- Comment #3 from Schrodinger ZHU Yifan ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> [s]bitsizetype is not handled in JIT.
I see. But why does it work before?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106676
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|15.0|14.3
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117883
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117886
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
[s]bitsizetype is not handled in JIT.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117886
--- Comment #1 from Schrodinger ZHU Yifan ---
Created attachment 59768
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59768&action=edit
Reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117886
Bug ID: 117886
Summary: GIMPLE pass asan0 no longer works after
LIBGCCJIT_ABI_32
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106676
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a088552e133d2cab903d9b2660c045e18b57ef65
commit r14-11034-ga088552e133d2cab903d9b2660c045e18b57ef65
Author: Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117822
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:136ff35dd3413ba4b404649e5947682a7f998109
commit r14-11025-g136ff35dd3413ba4b404649e5947682a7f998109
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117560
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:edbe164af12589002dec6ac5fe92304567b0ab98
commit r14-11029-gedbe164af12589002dec6ac5fe92304567b0ab98
Author: Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117885
Bug ID: 117885
Summary: Casting element to bitfield subparts can be constant
evaluated wrongly.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117855
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117884
Bug ID: 117884
Summary: Wire up libgdiagnostics documentation build to
top-level Makefile
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117883
Bug ID: 117883
Summary: Build libgdiagnostics documentation as HTML and put on
gcc.gnu.org somewhere
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117243
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/670613.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117882
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> I don't think it's a dup
This meant to say "... of PR 24663." because it's not the same problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117882
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117882
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116918
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:58ef1c521c15d3c7755e0f96b472b625122ab609
commit r14-11023-g58ef1c521c15d3c7755e0f96b472b625122ab609
Author: Gaius Mulley
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117774
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117881
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117774
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e81edf9d86f3647dc510784ee49a625dbaded8b5
commit r14-11022-ge81edf9d86f3647dc510784ee49a625dbaded8b5
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117882
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #1 from Marek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117882
Bug ID: 117882
Summary: SFINAE not respected for array parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71377
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116918
--- Comment #8 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aa38196eb45bfb8a8632381ba3e277deb1b25782
commit r14-11021-gaa38196eb45bfb8a8632381ba3e277deb1b25782
Author: Gaius Mulley
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117878
--- Comment #2 from Li Pan ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #1)
> Is this related to PR117353? Seems very similar.
Yes, very similar but ice at different pass.
The similar approach like ix86_pre_reload_split can fix the code example i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117872
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117243
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116749
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117243
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|14.3|12.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117827
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96628
Nick Desaulniers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||keithp at keithp dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117878
--- Comment #3 from Robin Dapp ---
Generally, yes, I guess. But I'd like to understand better what exactly is
going wrong. Shouldn't emitting those "pre-RA" insns already be guarded
properly? I haven't looked into it in detail - isn't there a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117878
Bug ID: 117878
Summary: RISC-V: ICE when build spec17 526.blender_r with -O3
-march=rv64gcv_zvl256b
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116447
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
How was the compiler configured and what's the full command line used when
building the test?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116799
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80677
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Schwab ---
The default value of BUILD_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR assumes a properly populated
sysroot.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117874
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
In particular
t.c:11:12: note: Starting SLP discovery for
t.c:11:12: note: c_84(D)->e[2][j_110].real = _55;
t.c:11:12: note: c_84(D)->e[2][j_110].imag = _66;
t.c:11:12: note: starting SLP disco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117836
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117827
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |15.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116799
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly reduced testcase:
const char *l;
__attribute__((noipa)) void
foo (const char *x, const char *y, int z)
{
if (x != l + 1 || y != x || z)
__builtin_abort ();
}
__attribute__((noipa)) void
bar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117243
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||13.1.0
Summary|[14/15 regres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117555
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:89761f1f03565468eb3b15259f6ad42af0cfe198
commit r14-11019-g89761f1f03565468eb3b15259f6ad42af0cfe198
Author: Gaius Mulley
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117881
Bug ID: 117881
Summary: Emit diagnostic note wrt FPs for middle-end warnings
with sanitizers
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80677
--- Comment #10 from Helmut Grohne ---
Sam James, please give the patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-April/650271.html a try. It
entirely removes LIMITS_H_TEST and defers the check to runtime. To verify the
patch, it is not s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78829
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
Worth revisiting now that the default C standard is changing again
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117243
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117133
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117873
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Spurious|Spurious
|-Wmaybe-uni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117878
--- Comment #1 from Robin Dapp ---
Is this related to PR117353? Seems very similar.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117880
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117880
Bug ID: 117880
Summary: [14/15 Regression] ICE with -Wduplicated-branches
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117243
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117879
Bug ID: 117879
Summary: libgdiagnostics and libgccjit installed into */lib
directory rather than */lib64 on multilib
non-multiarch hosts
Product: gcc
Version: 15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117243
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59765
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59765&action=edit
Full Patch which I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117243
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 regression]|[12/13/14/15 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80677
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugs.gentoo.org/sho
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
