https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92468
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-16
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sun, 15 Mar 2020, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125
>
> --- Comment #7 from bin cheng ---
> Patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94179
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Created attachment 48036 [details]
> gcc10-pr94179.patch
>
> Untested fix.
> And/or we could limit the match.pd optimization to GIMPLE only, as at least
> the C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68785
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #14)
> Interestingly, I ran the code in comment 8 through a valgrind version
> of recent gcc trunk, with the compiler flag -O2, and got this:
>
> ./gcc.dg/pr68785.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] wrong |[9 Regression] wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94135
--- Comment #4 from Jens Seifert ---
Setting CA in XER increases issue to issue latency by 1 on Power8.
See:
Table 10-14. Issue-to-Issue Latencies
In addition, setting the CA restricts instruction reordering.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94185
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94166
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5ba25b2ef179aec8ba4c47612fbc5c388f41cb36
commit r10-7185-g5ba25b2ef179aec8ba4c47612fbc5c388f41cb36
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94167
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6d44c881286762628afce5169d921a388ae6a1ff
commit r10-7186-g6d44c881286762628afce5169d921a388ae6a1ff
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94168
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Thank you for the analysis and suggested patch.
The original source code looks like this:
#ifdef WINDOWS
static std::string wide_string_to_string(const std::wstring & wstr)
{
int size_needed = WideCharToMul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94166
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94187
Bug ID: 94187
Summary: valgrind error in count_nonzero_bytes ?
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68785
--- Comment #16 from David Binderman ---
Done. See # 94187.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94167
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] |[8/9 Regression] pr71109.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94188
Bug ID: 94188
Summary: [10 Regression] error: request for member ‘node’ in
something not a structure or union since
r10-7127-gcb99630f254aaec6
Product: gcc
Versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94188
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-16
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61338
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Possibly easier is the case of a reduction, where permutations are clearly
irrelevant.
int f(int*arr,int size){
int sum=0;
for(int i = 0; i < size; i++){
sum += arr[size-1-i];
}
return sum;
}
We s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94185
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94189
Bug ID: 94189
Summary: [9/10 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure
Wstrict-overflow-22.c
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94188
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94190
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94190
Bug ID: 94190
Summary: [10 Regression] error: no post-decrement operator for
type since r10-7096-gd417b4f5414d9076
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94189
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On which target? Can't reproduce on x86_64-linux nor powerpc64le-linux.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94189
Roman Zhuykov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] |[9/10 Regression]
|-fc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94190
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94191
Bug ID: 94191
Summary: ubsan bootstrap memory hog with -enable-checking=rtl
Product: gcc
Version: 9.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94191
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Don't do it or buy enough memory.
RTL checking alone already creates lots of basic blocks due to all the checks
it performs (in the code the compiler is compiling) and ubsan as well (in the
instrumentation it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94189
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
const char a[] = { 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd' };
int
foo (void)
{
return __builtin_strnlen (a, 5);
}
and this one doesn't generate different code between -O2 -g and -O2, but FAILs
with -fcompare-debug because tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94188
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Just for the record, I also see it in acpica package:
$ cat cfg.i
enum act_name { ACT_HTTP_REQ_AUTH };
struct act_rule {
int list;
enum act_name action
} fn1() {
fn2(((struct act_rule *)((void *)fn2 - (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94168
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
I reported that upstream as well:
https://github.com/hfst/hfst-ospell/issues/49
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94187
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94170
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89229
--- Comment #34 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a3c42b227bbe9e7acb5335088d2255262311bd8
commit r10-7189-g5a3c42b227bbe9e7acb5335088d2255262311bd8
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Mon Mar 16 03
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89229
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94186
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94189
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89226
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94189
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48038
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48038&action=edit
gcc10-pr94189-1.patch
One possible fix, optimize even if we emit a warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94189
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48039
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48039&action=edit
gcc10-pr94189-2.patch
Another possible fix. Don't optimize if we would emit a warning and don't emit
it just b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94191
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||memory-hog
--- Comment #2 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94190
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94187
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
I checked again and I see this problem in all my valgrind versions of gcc
from date 20200216 onwards. I have no earlier version.
I use the latest development version of valgrind. Latest release
version see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94187
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94187
Jakub Jelinek 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=93248
--- Comment #7 from Rene Rahn ---
Many thanks for your great work!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94187
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Summary|valgrind error i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94187
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually, I'll take the testcase out, since gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr68785.c is
identical except for -O3 instead of -O2, but the bug reproduces also at -O3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94192
Bug ID: 94192
Summary: ICE on wrong code
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94185
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka ---
I am hitting probably the same issue:
$ cat testcase.c
int a, b, c;
int
foo (char e, short f, long g)
{
g = __builtin_mul_overflow (a, c, &b) ? g : (unsigned) g;
g &= __builtin_clrsbll (b);
return e + f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94044
--- Comment #10 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Thanks for poking at this Jim!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94187
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
Once a month or so, it might be worthwhile running a valgrind enabled
version of gcc over the C testsuite.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94066
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91561
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=88974
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48042
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48042&action=edit
gcc10-pr88974.patch
Untested fix for that. Or instead set result->src_loc to result->src_loc =
pfile->line_tab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92379
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|AS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #13 from Avi Kivity ---
Can you attach the patch here please?
I'd like to test that this is the only blocker for adopting gcc 10 for us, so
that we can adopt it as soon as it is released. I'm anxious to start using
coroutines.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94164
Laurent Stacul changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92909
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cyp561 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91793
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94188
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 48043
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48043&action=edit
patch in testing
This is what I have now, bootstrapped OK after the extra two hunks but I still
see ICEs durin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94193
Bug ID: 94193
Summary: powerpc: Provide
fegetround/feraiseexcept/feclearexcept builtins
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94194
Bug ID: 94194
Summary: x86: Provide feraiseexcept builtins
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94195
Bug ID: 94195
Summary: missing warning reading a smaller object via an lvalue
of a larger type
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94188
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Created attachment 48043 [details]
> patch in testing
>
> This is what I have now, bootstrapped OK after the extra two hunks but I
> still
> see ICEs during tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah (though that change introduced PR94185).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91759
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 48044
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48044&action=edit
Candidate patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91759
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48045
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48045&action=edit
gcc10-pr91759.patch
So, shall we restore the old diagnostics for the case where set_decl_namespace
isn't called
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94194
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Is there a convenient way for gcc to know the value of FE_DIVBYZERO, etc on the
target? Do we need to hardcode it? Can we rely on different libc on the same
processor to use the same value?
What happens if the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94172
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94196
Bug ID: 94196
Summary: Multiple issues with attributes
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94197
Bug ID: 94197
Summary: __is_constructible gives an access error
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94033
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The reason I haven't committed it yet is I had to figure out a workaround for
PR 94197 which caused some tests to fail with my earlier patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94172
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92792
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bc093503d74b02f5372373bfaf052fb1bac3d553
commit r10-7192-gbc093503d74b02f5372373bfaf052fb1bac3d553
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Mon Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94172
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Can't reproduce on the trunk, neither on x86_64-linux with -Os -g3
> -fshort-enums, nor on arm-linux-gnueabi with -Os -g3 -fshort-enums
> -mcpu=cortex-m0 -mthu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94172
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Oops, sorry, I've used __asm volatile (""); so that it doesn't have an arm
specific instruction and in that case it doesn't ICE. With __asm volatile
("nop"); it ICEs even on x86_64-linux. Looking...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94172
--- Comment #6 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Can't reproduce on the trunk, neither on x86_64-linux with -Os -g3
> -fshort-enums, nor on arm-linux-gnueabi with -Os -g3 -fshort-enums
> -mcpu=cortex-m0 -mthumb
I tried
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92216
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=94172
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94172
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90404
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94197
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-03-16
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94192
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94192
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94196
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
See A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94198
Bug ID: 94198
Summary: Placement of source file in GCC command line has
impact on whether the link succeeds
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3481
--- Comment #3 from owner at bugs dot debian.org ---
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this Bug report.
This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.
Your message has n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3481
--- Comment #4 from owner at bugs dot debian.org ---
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this Bug report.
This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.
Your message has n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3481
--- Comment #5 from owner at bugs dot debian.org ---
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this Bug report.
This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.
Your message has n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3481
--- Comment #6 from owner at bugs dot debian.org ---
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this Bug report.
This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.
Your message has n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80495
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|9.0 |10.0, 9.2.0
Last reconfirmed|2018-09-14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3481
--- Comment #7 from owner at bugs dot debian.org ---
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this Bug report.
This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.
Your message has n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94197
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3481
--- Comment #8 from owner at bugs dot debian.org ---
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this Bug report.
This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.
Your message has n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3481
--- Comment #9 from owner at bugs dot debian.org ---
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this Bug report.
This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.
Your message has n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3481
--- Comment #10 from owner at bugs dot debian.org ---
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this Bug report.
This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.
Your message has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3481
--- Comment #11 from owner at bugs dot debian.org ---
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this Bug report.
This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.
Your message has
1 - 100 of 243 matches
Mail list logo
