https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119380
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119406
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119349
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
With this modification it works:
implicit none
type string_t
character(len=:), allocatable :: string_
end type
logical :: result
result = .false.
result = true(string())
print *, resu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119349
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-03-19
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119349
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #3)
> Looks related to pr118747, where an elemental subroutine was used
> instead of a function.
It has some similarities. Since Andre did the fix on that one, we need to se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119502
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119502
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #12)
> On 4/17/25 23:59, pault at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > Is it worth reverting or fixing this before the 15-branch release? After
> > all,
> > the bug made its way
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I get one test failure:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/do_concurrent_all_clauses.f90 -O (test for errors, line
21)
from:
! { dg-do compile }
program do_concurrent_all_clauses
implicit none
integer :: i, arr(10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119502
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Building with Steve's latest patch now. If all passes here I will commit to 16
and request to backport to 15. Thanks Steve.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
--- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #17)
> Fixed on 16-trunk for far without fallout, so adjusting summary.
>
> Do we need to ping the RM for backport permission?
I have pinged.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119948
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Occam's razor suggests we go with Paul's patch. Paul, do you want to handle the
commit-ish work or I can do it for you. Just let me know.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119948
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-27
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119986
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79330
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #20)
> Jerry, thanks for getting this in gcc15.
Yes, Jakub gave me the OK. Thanks for your support as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
Bug ID: 120049
Summary: ICE when using IS_C_ASSOCIATED ()
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
With the original test case, the following eliminates the ICE.
diff --git a/examples/tests_gtk_sup.f90 b/examples/tests_gtk_sup.f90
index 8f8168b..ab47c8d 100644
--- a/examples/tests_gtk_sup.f90
+++ b/examp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119502
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119502
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Interestingly PR 48618 has a slightly different interpretation of the standard.
I will be checking the 2023 to see.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119836
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
You have a great crystal ball.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #16 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Patch submitted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2025-May/062094.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Vincent was able to reduce this further. Two files, gtk_sup.f90 and test.f90.
$ cat gtk_sup.f90
module gtk_sup
use, intrinsic :: iso_c_binding
end module gtk_sup
$ cat test.f90
program tests_gtk_sup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
That is exactly the patch I was testing Steve.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 61307
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61307&action=edit
Prelimnary patch to fix this.
With the attached patch this case compiles and runs.
$ cat z2.f90
program tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #8)
> program tests_gtk_sup
>use gtk_sup
>implicit none
>type(c_ptr), target :: val
>print *, c_associated(val, c_loc(val))
>print *, c_associated(c_loc(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I should mention That this issue was first identified by Vincent Magnin.
Vincent has also confirmed the issue on gfortran 11.5 on Ubuntu. There is also
a variation where it compiles and segfaults at run tim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120111
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The patch regressions tests OK. I dont know how to do a test case that requires
two files to compile. I am looking through the test suite for the incantations.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120099
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #2)
Disregard this, sorry for the noise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #7)
> > That is exactly the patch I was testing Steve.
>
> I assume that you've found that you'll need to
> deal with both c_pt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I have a patch now that addresses the original problem and regression tests
fine whcih I will submit to the gfortran list. Before I do that I want to
explore these other cases given in Comment #8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119856
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119889
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119889
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115781
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118793
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The particular error situation is unique because it is just before we try to
match the variable name. This might be sufficient in this case:
$ ./a.out
At line 18 of file pr118793.f90
Fortran runtime error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119136
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-03-07
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119054
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Fixed on gcc-15, preparing backport to 14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115265
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119118
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119136
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115265
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115265
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I have backported cleanly and regression tested on 14 branch. Will push
shortly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118640
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115265
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Matthew Krupcale from comment #10)
> Thanks Jerry! I think you may also have to backport the fix [1] for PR118640
> to avoid regression on the 14 branch as well.
>
> [1]
> https://gcc.gnu.org/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118793
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119054
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118884
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I forgot to mention this is a good hint for Thomas regarding how to tweak the
previous fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118884
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118935
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108680
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108680
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
We can have only one default integer otherwise its not a default. Our default
integer is KIND=4
The RANGE of KIND=4 integer is 9, so we exceed the requirement for at least a
decimal range of 5. RANGE is def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108680
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108680
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The check is being done in interface.cc. The kind is being checked against
default_integer_kind.
case(2):/* UNIT */
type = BT_INTEGER;
kind = gfc_default
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108680
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
>From the 2023 standard I find:
"The keyword INTEGER with no kind-selector specifies type integer with default
kind; the kind type parameter value is equal to KIND (0). The decimal exponent
range of default
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118935
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #10)
> What does the OpenMP standard say about I/O in partallel exexution?
I don't know,but the situation is libgfortran threads are being launched by the
async I/O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #23 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I have modified gcc.texi here to yield, after make info, the following pasted
out of my terminal viewing with info:
‘-x LANGUAGE’
Specify explicitly the LANGUAGE for the following input files
(ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108680
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle ---
"The keyword INTEGER with no kind-selector specifies type integer with default
kind; the kind type parameter value is equal to KIND (0). The decimal exponent
range of default integer shall be at least 5." -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #19 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 60593
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60593&action=edit
Possible patch to change compile behavior
This patch changes the fortran/lang-spec.h as a possible better app
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108369
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #20)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #19)
> >
> > What this is doing is invoking -std=legacy for files with suffixes that
> > imply legacy files such as .f
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117430
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #24 from Jerry DeLisle ---
It is interestingly complex. As I try different test cases I learn new things.
For example this error is caught already somewhere else in the code path. I am
going to identify where tomorrow. This may be a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #22 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I forgot to mention that when you flip the test example around:
print *, c_associated(42, c_loc(val))
It also gives an internal error. So I am taking care of it as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120179
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Obviously, LOL, I threw myself off the trail. Thanks Steve.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120111
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to john.harper from comment #6)
> Thank you. I haven't changed my LD_FORTRAN_PATH for a long time and the
> only things in it are to do with intel/oneapi. But there are a lot of
> lib64 directorie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Some fall out after the commit. This may be an unrelated regression on 16.
On 5/6/25 10:59 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 07:43:41PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>>
>> the new logic misses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120111
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to john.harper from comment #4)
> Sorry if I did something wrong when installing gfortran 15 from source
> tarball gcc-15.1.0.tar.xz in a Linux Ubuntu system. Maybe your gfortran 15
> is not ident
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #28 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I was also working on a patch as well and it occurred to me that we need the
logic to go like this with a helper function:
// helper function, possibly two arguments here for checking
bool checkthearg (ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61307|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #29 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Steve, I am still working on it. Always other things getting me in the time
domain. (poles and zeros so to speak, LOL)
I do like some of the checks in Comment #27.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #31 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Patch submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2025-May/062177.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #33 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #32)
> The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle
> :
Preparing for the backport of the follow-on patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61445|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61475|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
--- Comment #37 from Jerry DeLisle ---
With this now pushed, I plan to backport to 15 in a few days. I also want to
revise the langauge of the error messages to be clearer. This will wiggle on
several existing test cases so I want it to be a se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101735
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101735
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #7)
> > Ruuning tests right now to see if this has caused some breakage.
>
> Are you also hit by r16-916-g517c9487f8fdc4 which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101735
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #12)
> Created attachment 61529 [details]
> Fix for the breakage by r16-914-g787a8dec1acedf
OK to push after testing. I am rebuilding now and can do for you. It has to be
l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120431
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119856
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Note: I biffed the PR number in the log.
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e2bf0b3910de7e65363435f0a7fa606e2448a677
commit r16-939-ge2bf0b3910de7e65363435f0a7fa60
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83282
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119856
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119856
Bug 119856 depends on bug 83282, which changed state.
Bug 83282 Summary: missing comma in format changes output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83282
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119586
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109345
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119856
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 61556
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61556&action=edit
Patch to correct runtime behavior of repeated use of the same format
This patch corrects a latent problem. ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119856
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Walter Spector from comment #7)
> Confirmed that the compiler now diagnoses the missing commas. Thanks!
>
After taking out the iostat so I could see the error message I am getting the
followin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119856
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #8)
> At line 7 of file newby.f90 (unit = 6, file = 'stdout')
> Fortran runtime error: Missing comma between descriptors
> (AI5)
> ^
Oops, I copied the wrong o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119948
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Damian Rouson from comment #20)
> Should this issue be marked as resolved? If so, can the fix be back ported
> to the 15 branch?
I think it is resolved. It could be backported. Paul if you ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120514
Bug ID: 120514
Summary: Build failure, possibly with C++
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120049
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120743
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
401 - 500 of 538 matches
Mail list logo
