https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63406
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69506
--- Comment #1 from Roger Orr ---
See also http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.os.cygwin/156987
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69506
Bug ID: 69506
Summary: check-in 232454 seems to cause problems with cygwin
builds
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69507
Bug ID: 69507
Summary: bogus warning: ISO C does not allow ‘__alignof__
(expression)’
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69507
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69503
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-darwin
Component|other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69507
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't think this is a bogus warning. -pedantic turns off all of GCC
extensions including __attribute__ and asm support IIRC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69507
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The manual says this about -Wpedantic:
-Wpedantic does not cause warning messages for use of the alternate keywords
whose names begin and end with '__'.
GCC accepts without a warning many extensions in ped
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69508
Bug ID: 69508
Summary: Undefined Behavior Sanitizer
__ubsan_handle_load_invalid_value reports invalid load
with wrong value
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69268
--- Comment #3 from Rich Townsend ---
Proposed patch appears to work in the real-world case I'm focused on. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69508
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you provide the preprocessed source?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69299
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Maybe we really need to have two types of memory
> constraints, ones which can be worst case always satisfied by reloading
> their address into an address regi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69507
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69466
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69509
Bug ID: 69509
Summary: infinite loop compiling a VLA in a recursive constexpr
function
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69507
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 37483
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37483&action=edit
Proposed patch.
Attaching a proposed patch tested on x86_64-linux. Since GCC is in stage 4
(regression fixes on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
--- Comment #9 from Richard Henderson ---
Created attachment 37484
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37484&action=edit
proposed patch
Fixes the test case, in that it prevents the remat.
Starting overnight bootstraps for armv7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69484
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69399
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69268
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57315
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69510
Bug ID: 69510
Summary: segfault in write_template_prefix while compiling C++
template code
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69510
Mike Frysinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.4, 4.8.5
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69336
Dominik Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69347
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69510
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67337
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vapier at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69482
--- Comment #4 from wipedout at yandex dot ru ---
Okay, suppose we have the following scenario. There's a third party library
with an encryption function like this:
void encrypt( void* data, void* key );
That function is compiled into as a s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60818
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe |powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69408
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655
--- Comment #25 from Rainer Emrich ---
I'm testing rev. 232815, proposed patch applied, on x86_64-w64-mingw32 atm.
Will take some time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69483
Bug ID: 69483
Summary: gcc ICE on x86_64-linux-gnu with "expected class
'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in
useless_type_conversion_p"
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655
--- Comment #26 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Roger,
> I've tried the patch (applied to 232400 as trunk seems to have other
> problems on cygwin) and the build now completes successfully.
Including libstdc++-v3 ?
> Additionally, the test case no lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69483
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69400
--- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Tue Jan 26 09:53:33 2016
New Revision: 232817
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232817&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 69400: Invalid 128-bit modulus result
As described
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69400
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6 Regression] wrong code |[5 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69408
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to night_ghost from comment #4)
> I can attach script which GCC has been built, and ZIP of the project tree
> which cause crash.
Hi.
That would be beneficial!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67896
--- Comment #3 from James Greenhalgh ---
Author: jgreenhalgh
Date: Tue Jan 26 10:04:46 2016
New Revision: 232818
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232818&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH] Do not set structural equality on polynomial types
gcc/C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69483
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #13 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Already during the expansion TARGET_STV makes quite a big difference, won't
> just disabling the stv pass cause performance regression to -mno-stv?
There is a di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67295
--- Comment #13 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We can look at the impact of enabling ree for arm for GCC 7 then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69484
Bug ID: 69484
Summary: documentation issue: -Wtabs and -Wall
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69442
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 26 11:12:03 2016
New Revision: 232819
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232819&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/69442
* combine.c (combine_instructions): For R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69478
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69484
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|documentation issue: -Wtabs |[5/6 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69478
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Have you tried H.J's patch? If I understand it right, IMHO at least the
*mov_internal changes look desirable to me after the recent changes where
misaligned_operand matters even for pre-AVX, and the result
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69485
Bug ID: 69485
Summary: oddity with -Wtabs
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69482
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69442
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69478
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68654
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68654
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #15 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> Have you tried H.J's patch? If I understand it right, IMHO at least the
> *mov_internal changes look desirable to me after the recent changes
> where misaligne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69476
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But it is for a relatively uncommon case (-mpreferred-stack-boundary lower than
default) and furthermore, you need to have something spilled to trigger it.
Hopefully the most commonly used regs in loops wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69452
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 26 11:51:01 2016
New Revision: 232820
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232820&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-26 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/69452
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69467
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69467
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 26 12:05:22 2016
New Revision: 232821
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232821&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-26 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/69467
* mat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69471
--- Comment #4 from wavexx at thregr dot org ---
Since I couldn't find documentation for it either, doesn't
-march=haswell by itself imply all associated ISA features?
If so, why -march=native expands to all individual features explicitly?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69268
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69486
Bug ID: 69486
Summary: Strange behaviour of bitset and c++11
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69268
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #2 from ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68654
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 37474
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37474&action=edit
patch for SSA name management
This patch changes SSA name freelist management to keep the freelist sorted
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68662
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68986
--- Comment #16 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Jan 26 12:51:07 2016
New Revision: 232825
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232825&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Update stack alignment in ix86_update_stack_boundary
Stack alignm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69482
wipedout at yandex dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wipedout at yandex dot ru
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68986
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6 Regression] internal |[5 Regression] internal
|com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69254
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 26 13:01:44 2016
New Revision: 232826
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232826&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/69254
* opts.h (parse_sanitizer_options): New prot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #15)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> > Have you tried H.J's patch? If I understand it right, IMHO at least the
> > *mov_internal changes look desirable to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #17)
>
> Do you have a testcase to show that you need to realign stack for STV?
You can keep track alignment requirement in STV and replace
/* Conversion means we may have 128
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62536
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #19 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #17)
> Do you have a testcase to show that you need to realign stack for STV?
Reproducer for this tracker is such test, right?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44281
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #20 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #19)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #17)
> > Do you have a testcase to show that you need to realign stack for STV?
>
> Reproducer for this tracker is such test, right
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69487
Bug ID: 69487
Summary: Unexpected VLA initialization of char[] from ""
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60410
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45216
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Schmidt ---
It looks like a patch was committed - can this be closed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69485
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #20)
> (In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #19)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #17)
> > > Do you have a testcase to show that you need to realign stack for STV?
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67896
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655
--- Comment #27 from Rainer Emrich ---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Am 26.01.2016 um 10:30 schrieb nickc at gcc dot gnu.org:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655
>
> --- Comment #26 from Nick Clifton --- Hi
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45216
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68654
--- Comment #17 from Alexander Fomin ---
Unfortunately, it doesn't. Moreover, it causes another perf loss (about 1.2%).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #6)
> (In reply to amker from comment #5)
> > Not sure if stage4 is a good time for a new hook either.
> >
> > Any ideas?
>
> We can try to improve i386 add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #22 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #21)
> In another word, STV needs 128-bit aligned stack only when it generates
> 12-bit vector instructions.
STV never generates such instructions. But RA may spill SSE re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65434
Emil Styrke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||emil.styrke at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68662
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn ---
Unconditionally generating toc_label_name is okay with me, but I thought that
Alan commented it was not sufficient in Comment #2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #22)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #21)
> > In another word, STV needs 128-bit aligned stack only when it generates
> > 12-bit vector instructions.
>
> STV never gene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69487
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901
--- Comment #19 from Chen Gang ---
I build linux kernel with allyesconfig under x86_64 for linux-next tree
20160122. I can find some related cases for BUG28901 (but they are not quite
much), one case is below:
CC drivers/acpi/sbshc.o
In f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454
--- Comment #24 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #23)
> (In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #22)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #21)
> > > In another word, STV needs 128-bit aligned stack only when it generates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655
--- Comment #28 from Nick Clifton ---
Author: nickc
Date: Tue Jan 26 14:02:11 2016
New Revision: 232828
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232828&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66655
* config/i386/winnt.c (i386_pe_binds_local
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901
--- Comment #20 from Chen Gang ---
(In reply to Chen Gang from comment #19)
> I build linux kernel with allyesconfig under x86_64 for linux-next tree
> 20160122. I can find some related cases for BUG28901 (but they are not quite
> much), one case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69486
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655
--- Comment #30 from Alexander Monakov ---
Nick, can you please post the patch to gcc-patches too, to avoid confusing
future people who wouldn't be able to find the explanation of the patch in the
archives?
(did you get approval for this patch o
1 - 100 of 226 matches
Mail list logo
