of the removed call types.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
5c2c71aa8#24a935c5c2c71aa8>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/perl.perl6.internals/browse_frm/thread/86466b906c8e6e10/24a935c5c2c71aa8#24a935c5c2c71aa8
where Dan Sugalski says: "I'd just pitch an exception if code
deletes an entry ..."
Perhaps this is OK, because this code is intended f
o, things weren't particularly happy in parrot land. And no, you
generally didn't see it. And no, it has nothing to do with Larry. And
no, I'm not going to go into it here -- this isn't the place for it.
--
Dan
------
At 8:14 PM -0400 6/3/05, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 02:55:52PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Dan was expecting sane defaults, that is when I do addition with two
PMCs that haven't otherwise said they behave specially that the
floating point values of the two PMC
Dan
--it's like this-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 2:50 PM +0200 6/3/05, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Right, so to reduce code duplication you remove stuff that's
working so people have to go reimplement the code. That makes
*perfect* sense.
I've announced and summarized all these changes, e.g.
http://xrl.us/ga
At 9:23 AM +0200 6/3/05, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I sync'd up with subversion this afternoon, and I'm finding that a
*lot* of things that used to work for me are now breaking really
badly. Specifically where there used to be sane fall
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
perties and
attributes.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
s early and my memory's not
cooperating at the moment)
--
Dan
----------it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
d still handling the more legacy
one-dimensional aggregates of references scheme that, say, perl 5
uses.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
------it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
arrot can't find 'em)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
d really like it fast and simple enough to be
reasonably auditable)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 4:35 PM -0400 5/20/05, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Well, mostly. string->cstring conversion is potentially lossy, if
for no other reason than embedded nulls will get in your way. I see
we're not exposing anything to do that, though, which we ought
thing -- in principle it's not that tough (Hey, I did
one, I get to say that :) though that does depend on what the code in
the interface generator looks like.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
ought to fix.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
sequences.
I thought I'd put in some docs to that effect, but apparently not. :(
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
u can reduce
the uncertainty you get a speed boost. A lot of programs aren't in a
position to do that, which is fine. Parrot, because of what it is,
*is* in a position to do so, so we did.
--
Dan
--it's like this--
At 9:19 AM +0200 4/30/05, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... We should probably make it 'safe' by forcing the
destroyed PMC to be an Undef after destruction, in case something was
still referring to it.
That sounds sane. Or maybe be: convert
At 7:50 PM +0200 4/30/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
Hi!
Just a small question:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 04:37:21PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
If you don't have the destroy, and don't tag the object as needing
expedited cleanup, then the finalizer *will* still be called. You
just don&
At 11:12 PM -0400 4/29/05, Bob Rogers wrote:
From: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:23:47 -0400
At 10:55 PM -0400 4/28/05, Bob Rogers wrote:
>From: Robin Redeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I'm astounded. Do neither of you ever desi
onal to the number of live objects.
It's definitely possible to work up degenerate examples for both
refcount and tracing systems that show them in a horribly bad light
relative to the other, but in the general case the tracing schemes
are significantly less expensive.
From: Dan
7;s set up.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
n, in case something was
still referring to it.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
acing system *isn't*. That'd require changing
the entire source base, and just isn't feasible.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
the object even if there
are outstanding references, which is likely the wrong thing to do.
--
Dan
--it's like this-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy
At 12:12 AM +0200 4/28/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:33:30PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
> Also, with all this stuff, people are going to find timely destruction
> is less useful than they might want, what with threads and
> continuations,
At 5:57 PM +0200 4/28/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 03:43:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 5:40 PM +0200 4/27/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
>Just for the curious me: What was the design decision behind the GC
>solution? Was refcounting that bad? Refcounting gives a more
now, though I
think it's in there for perl 6. I doubt the python, ruby, Lisp, or
Tcl compilers will emit the cleanup-at-block-boundary sweep code.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
dea.
--
Dan
--it's like this-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
n
entry in the MMD table.
--
Dan
------it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 4:42 PM +0200 4/14/05, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 3:53 PM +0200 4/14/05, Jens Rieks wrote:
Yes, the CVS repository is not updated anymore.
Swell
You need just this part:
Date: Wed Apr 13 03:04:41 2005
New Revision: 7824
Modified:
>t
At 9:51 AM -0700 4/14/05, Dave Whipp wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
All security is done on a per-interpreter basis. (really on a
per-thread basis, but since we're one-thread per interpreter it's
essentially the same thing)
...
* Number of open files
* IO operations/sec
* IO
At 5:51 PM -0400 4/13/05, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 17:01, Dan Sugalski wrote:
So here's what I was thinking of for Parrot's security and quota
model. (Note that none of this is actually *implemented* yet...)
[...]
It's actually pretty straightforward, the hard
At 10:44 AM -0400 4/14/05, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 09:11, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:03 PM -0400 4/13/05, Michael Walter wrote:
>On 4/13/05, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> All security is done on a per-interpreter basis. (really on a
>>
At 3:53 PM +0200 4/14/05, Jens Rieks wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 15:33, Dan Sugalski wrote:
(If the CVS repository's not up to date I
can see about getting subversion installed and working)
Yes, the CVS repository is not updated anymore.
Swell -- I thought when we were switching ov
At 2:05 PM -0400 4/13/05, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 12:05 PM +0200 4/13/05, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
As of rev 7824 Parrot *should* run with NUM_REGISTERS defined as 64
too. Only some stack tests are failing that do half frame push and
pop tests.
imcc/t/reg/spill_2 just spills 4 registers instead of
At 10:03 PM -0400 4/13/05, Michael Walter wrote:
Dan,
On 4/13/05, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All security is done on a per-interpreter basis. (really on a
per-thread basis, but since we're one-thread per interpreter it's
essentially the same thing)
Just to get
rimitive, and I don't think it's the one to take.
(We could invent our own, but history shows that people who invent
their own security system invent ones that suck, so that looks like
something worth avoiding)
--
Dan
arantees it makes. Now, it may make them by
using facilities the OS provides (which makes the
job easier) but it doesn't have to -- it can and
will do it with no OS help if need be.
--
Dan
----------it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
ly recommend against it)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
. Luckily there are plans for
one. :)
--
Dan
--it's like this-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
of your big subroutines and
report compile times and functionality.
Sure. I'll sync up and give it a shot.
--
Dan
--it's like this-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
be parrot) if you
want it to work.
--
Dan
------it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 12:27 PM -0500 3/22/05, MrJoltCola wrote:
At 06:55 PM 3/21/2005, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
According to Dan Sugalski:
As such, I'd like to say a big thanks to Chip Salzenburg who's agreed
to take the hat.
I thank you for your kind words, and for giving me the opportunity
again to work
At 12:50 PM -0800 3/21/05, chromatic wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 15:39 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
And, to forestall some of the wave of questions and off-list
grumbling: The FAQ!
Q: Is there any way to talk you into continuing to design, or at least
describing, the long-awaited security model
m just
*tired*. Definitely a sign it's time to pass the hat and get out of
the way.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
re the @MULTI() carries the signature, with a dash denoting
positions whose types are ignored for purposes of MMD lookup.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
n
------it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
since namespaces are
supposed to be lexically and dynamically overridable, as well as
layered, but that's all a separate thing)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
han quick
filename munging that I'm not sure it's worth it,
really)
Anyway, any sort of OS-independence should live
on top of the low-level interface, and would be a
reasonable thing to put in a library.
--
Dan
------it's like this
At 5:04 PM -0500 1/18/05, Sam Ruby wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Hi folks.
Welcome back!
Parrot's got the interesting, and somewhat unfortunate, requirement
of having to allow all subroutines behave as methods and all
methods behave as subroutines. (This is a perl 5 thing, but we have
to ma
At 1:50 PM -0500 1/19/05, Matt Diephouse wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:09:19 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good point--we should. That'd mean we'd want to have three sets of
data: the invoked full/base name, the 'program' full/base name, and
the interp
At 4:02 PM + 1/19/05, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 10:54:53AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
"parrot". If, on the other hand, we were invoked as:
parrot foo.pbc
then both fullname and basename would be "parrot". Unix hashbang (and
Windows file associa
le?
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
doesn't feel like adding invoke_method to the mix
will get us anywhere.
Anyway, there we go. (I fully expect to find that both topics are
dead about an hour after this goes out, but there you go :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Suga
At 10:56 AM +0100 12/21/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski (via RT) wrote:
You'll note that N5 is set to 22253 when the returncc's done, but
after the return the value is -21814.6. Looks like something's
stomping the N registers.
The program below shows exactly the sa
t's Undef
is generally clever enough to be a good generic destination, as it
morphs to most destination types on assign)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 9:31 AM + 12/15/04, Leopold Toetsch via RT wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Or not. (I've got too many versions of parrot around at the moment) I
see this bug happening against yesterday morning's parrot.
imcc/CVS/Entries shows a date of Mon Dec 13 12:19:33 2004 for reg_alloc.c.
I s
At 11:13 AM +0100 12/14/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
subclass - To create a subclass of a class object
Is existing and used.
Right. I was listing the things we need in the protocol. Some of them
we've got, some we don't, and some of the
At 8:48 AM -0500 12/14/04, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 9:08 AM + 12/14/04, Leopold Toetsch via RT wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMCC's doing odd things when moving PMCs into the appropriate spot
when calling into functions with a large number of parameters. Here'
At 3:31 PM +0100 12/14/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 10:19 AM +0100 12/14/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Which does argue that it ought not be a sub, I suppose, but something
simpler. A plain bsr sort of thing.
A bsr doesn't change anything. It ha
At 9:08 AM + 12/14/04, Leopold Toetsch via RT wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMCC's doing odd things when moving PMCs into the appropriate spot
when calling into functions with a large number of parameters. Here's
a snip from a trace of one of the programs r
At 10:19 AM +0100 12/14/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 8:07 AM +0100 12/10/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
* What is the intended usage of the action handler?
* Specifically is this also ment for lazy DOD runs?
* How is the relationship to the C opcode?
is. Hopefully things'll clear up soon and we can
start juggling more balls.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 8:07 AM +0100 12/10/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... A scope exit
action is put in place on the control stack with:
pushaction Psub
* What is the intended usage of the action handler?
* Specifically is this also ment for lazy DOD runs?
* How
;ve hit release and start seeing widespread
use.
--
Dan
------it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
st isn't any need for there to be a difference between opcode
functions and library functions.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 8:29 AM +0100 11/28/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Thomas Seiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:34 AM +0100 11/27/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
See also subject "Too many opcodes".
>> [...]
>>
Could you undo this please? Now is not the time to
em in.
--
Dan
--it's like this-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
not feeling clever enough to see how
without having a relatively costly double lookup on every method call
(first to see if there's a registered MMD method for the named
method, then the regular dispatch if there's not) so I'm not sure we
will. Efficient MMD wins, if we can make it look like
perl/python/ruby/tcl's method lookup rules are in force, even if they
really aren't under the hood.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
that later, closer to release, if we choose to do it
at all.
--
Dan
--it's like this-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
uld bootstrap
itself pretty nicely. That'd be cool... :)
--
Dan
------it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 4:02 PM +0100 11/23/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
The parrot I have, which is a day or two out of date, takes 7m to
churn through one of my pir files. With this patch, I killed the
run at 19.5 minutes.
One more note: be sure to compile Parrot optimized - the new
reg_alloc.c
At 10:28 AM +0100 11/22/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 9:59 AM +0100 11/19/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Its in and named C since yesterday "return with current
continuation".
Hrm. The name's not right,
I've proposed ret_cc and ret
parrot and perl 6
stories on slashdot, at 0, so if I don't actually have to do so,
well... so much the better usually. :)
--
Dan
--it's like this-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
tting understand the
policies and abide by them. TPF is working up Real Paperwork for
contributors so we can have everything official and as lawyer-proof
as we can manage.
--
Dan
--it's like this-------
Dan Sugalski
At 9:59 AM +0100 11/19/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The 'invoke the current return continuation' op apparently got lost
in the blowup. That needs to go in.
Its in and named C since yesterday "return with current
continuation".
won't be able to recreate it
without some CVS fiddling. :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 10:58 AM -0500 11/19/04, Andy Dougherty wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Dan Sugalski wrote:
So, if someone'd like to take a shot at thumping the template
makefile bits to add in compilers/p6ge to the basic build, that'd be
great. Grovelling over the code in there to scrub out portabili
bility
issues would also be good.
This should be relatively simple, so have at it. :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 7:26 AM -0700 11/19/04, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 09:05:31AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 7:00 AM -0700 11/19/04, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>One of the areas where we can definitely use assistance is
>in porting and testing p6ge in operating environments dif
e. This may have to wait
a little -- we're cleaning up the last of subs, I've still got the
string stuff outstanding, and I promised Sam Ruby I'd deal with
classes and metaclasses next.
So much time, so little to do. No, wait, that's not right...
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 10:58 PM + 11/18/04, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 11:37:54AM -0800, chromatic wrote:
On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 13:36 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I'd like pushing exception handlers to remain simple -- the current
> system is almost OK. What I'd like it
At 10:03 AM +0100 11/19/04, Miroslav Silovic wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
It's also important for people writing these things to take into
account the possibility that their exit actions may potentially be
triggered multiple times, courtesy of the joys of continuations.
Hmm, the first thi
ikely means I forgot to tell you that this is done, so try it
anyway. :)
--
Dan
----------it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
reason, though we'd probably be better off with variant
return/tailcall ops instead since it'd be cheaper than fully
instantiating the return continuation)
It's also important for people writing these things to take into
account the possibility that their exit actions may p
At 8:26 AM +0100 11/18/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Exceptions and continuations should be the same problem -- the target
is the start of a basic block. (Well, more than that, as they're
places where calling conventions potentially kick in) Thi
his means the
instruction immediately after a sub call starts a new block, as does
the start of an exception handler. (And I've got some docs on
exceptions that should be out later tonight)
--
Dan
------it's like this---
Dan Sug
At 5:08 PM -0500 11/17/04, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Chopping out the multiplication (since that's a not-insignificant
amount of the runtime for the bsr/ret version) gives:
PIR:
real0m3.016s
user0m2.990s
sys 0m0.030s
bsr/ret
real0m0.344s
user0m0.340s
sys 0m0.010s
and wit
rmal cases it'll be
significantly faster since it, by definition, has a lot less work to
do.
--
Dan
--it's like this-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have
At 10:03 PM +0100 11/17/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
[ this came up WRT calling conventions ]
I assume he's doing bsr/ret to get into and out of the sub, which
is going to be significantly faster.
Who says that?
As already stated, I don't consider these as either li
At 10:12 PM +0100 11/17/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 7:34 PM +0100 11/17/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
All registers are preserved, but some of these registers are used,
either by implict opcodes or as return values.
Erm, no. Unused registers in th
eir use probably ought to invalidate all the registers,
or the op restricted to pasm code.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have
> * Registers P4, S1-S4, N0-N4 are free for allocation, regardless.
I've included P3 (see below). If it's used it interfers.
Nope. It'll either be set if a call returns overflow parameters, or
unused and thus garbage.
--
Dan
-------
At 11:35 AM +0100 11/17/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay. I'll apply it and take a shot. May take a few hours to get a
real number.
How does it look like? Any results already?
Nope, haven't had time, unfortunately. Work's been busy. Today,
nfo rather than a pad or namespace.
--
Dan
--it's like this-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 4:10 PM -0500 11/16/04, Matt Fowles wrote:
Dan~
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:54:48 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 3:39 PM -0500 11/16/04, Matt Fowles wrote:
>Dan~
>
>
>On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:25:24 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>&
1 - 100 of 4805 matches
Mail list logo
