* [Bug fortran/27478] getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator"
2006-05-08 5:13 [Bug fortran/27478] New: getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator" johnurban at adelphia dot net
@ 2006-05-08 5:17 ` johnurban at adelphia dot net
2006-05-08 5:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: johnurban at adelphia dot net @ 2006-05-08 5:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from johnurban at adelphia dot net 2006-05-08 05:17 -------
Created an attachment (id=11400)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11400&action=view)
script that shows bug + output from running script
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/27478] getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator"
2006-05-08 5:13 [Bug fortran/27478] New: getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator" johnurban at adelphia dot net
2006-05-08 5:17 ` [Bug fortran/27478] " johnurban at adelphia dot net
@ 2006-05-08 5:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-06-04 15:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-05-08 5:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-08 05:20 -------
As far as I can tell it is a middle-end/gimplifier problem:
real4 __result_master.0.tsl;
real4 tsl.0 [value-expr: __result_master.0.tsl];
Unless the value expression should also be marked as TREE_ADDRESSABLE.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/27478] getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator"
2006-05-08 5:13 [Bug fortran/27478] New: getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator" johnurban at adelphia dot net
2006-05-08 5:17 ` [Bug fortran/27478] " johnurban at adelphia dot net
2006-05-08 5:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-06-04 15:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-06-04 15:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-06-04 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-06-04 15:16:36
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/27478] getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator"
2006-05-08 5:13 [Bug fortran/27478] New: getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator" johnurban at adelphia dot net
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2006-06-04 15:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-06-04 15:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-06-04 21:03 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-06-04 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 15:16 -------
*** Bug 27889 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |spyderous at gentoo dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/27478] getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator"
2006-05-08 5:13 [Bug fortran/27478] New: getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator" johnurban at adelphia dot net
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2006-06-04 15:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-06-04 21:03 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-06-04 21:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-06-04 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 20:58 -------
I'm amazed that 27889 is a duplicate of this bug, although I agree that they
have similar error messages. They happen in very different (and specific
circumstances). FYI, the testcases from 27889 are:
[on 4.1 at -O1 and higher]
MODULE constraints_module
REAL target
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE init_constraint
COMPLEX struc_fac
CALL set_structure_factor
RETURN
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE set_structure_factor
target = CONJG( struc_fac ) * struc_fac
END SUBROUTINE set_structure_factor
END SUBROUTINE init_constraint
END MODULE constraints_module
[on 4.2 at any optimization level]
COMPLEX z
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE foo
z = z + z
END SUBROUTINE foo
END
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/27478] getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator"
2006-05-08 5:13 [Bug fortran/27478] New: getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator" johnurban at adelphia dot net
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2006-06-04 21:03 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-06-04 21:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-02 11:35 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-06-04 21:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 21:02 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> I'm amazed that 27889 is a duplicate of this bug, although I agree that they
> have similar error messages. They happen in very different (and specific
> circumstances). FYI, the testcases from 27889 are:
The value handle is causing the regression but I will reopen that one as I
found a C testcase and finding a C testcase for this bug is harder.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/27478] getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator"
2006-05-08 5:13 [Bug fortran/27478] New: getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator" johnurban at adelphia dot net
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2006-06-04 21:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-02 11:35 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-02 19:39 ` [Bug middle-end/27478] entry and addressable and value-expr: and the gimplifier pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-02 11:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1236 bytes --]
------- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-02 11:35 -------
That one is annoying. Reduced testcase is:
FUNCTION X()
ENTRY X1
IF (X .GT. 0) CALL FOO(X)
END
The error message is:
a.f: In function master.0.x:
a.f:3: error: invalid operand to binary operator
__result_master.0.xD.914
a.f:3: internal compiler error: verify_stmts failed
And the original tree dump is:
x ()
{
return master.0.x (0);
x1 ()
{
return master.0.x (1);
master.0.x (__entry)
{
real4 __result_master.0.x;
real4 x.0 [value-expr: __result_master.0.x];
switch (__entry)
{
case 0:;
goto L.2;
case 1:;
goto L.4;
}
L.2:;
L.4:;
if (x.0 > 0.0)
{
foo (&x.0);
}
else
{
(void) 0;
}
return __result_master.0.x;
}
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |ice-on-valid-code
Last reconfirmed|2006-06-04 15:16:36 |2006-10-02 11:35:36
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/27478] entry and addressable and value-expr: and the gimplifier
2006-05-08 5:13 [Bug fortran/27478] New: getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator" johnurban at adelphia dot net
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-02 11:35 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-02 19:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-02 20:13 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-02 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-02 19:39 -------
The gimplifier is going wrong.
It first uses the value-expr and then forgets that can be addressable or maybe
even worse we don't mark the result as addressable.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|fortran |middle-end
Summary|getting ": error: invalid |entry and addressable and
|operand to binary operator" |value-expr: and the
| |gimplifier
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/27478] entry and addressable and value-expr: and the gimplifier
2006-05-08 5:13 [Bug fortran/27478] New: getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator" johnurban at adelphia dot net
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-02 19:39 ` [Bug middle-end/27478] entry and addressable and value-expr: and the gimplifier pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-02 20:13 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-02 22:16 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-02 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-02 20:13 -------
I think the following can workaround the middle-end problem:
Index: trans-decl.c
===================================================================
--- trans-decl.c (revision 117368)
+++ trans-decl.c (working copy)
@@ -1866,6 +1866,7 @@
TREE_PUBLIC (decl) = 0;
TREE_USED (decl) = 1;
GFC_DECL_RESULT (decl) = 1;
+ TREE_ADDRESSABLE (decl) = 1;
layout_decl (decl, 0);
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO| |19292
nThis| |
Component|fortran |middle-end
Known to fail| |4.2.0
Known to work| |4.1.2
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/27478] entry and addressable and value-expr: and the gimplifier
2006-05-08 5:13 [Bug fortran/27478] New: getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator" johnurban at adelphia dot net
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-02 20:13 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-02 22:16 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
2006-10-03 13:44 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: patchapp at dberlin dot org @ 2006-10-02 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-10-02 22:15 -------
Subject: Bug number PR 27478
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-10/msg00098.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/27478] entry and addressable and value-expr: and the gimplifier
2006-05-08 5:13 [Bug fortran/27478] New: getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator" johnurban at adelphia dot net
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-02 22:16 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
@ 2006-10-03 13:44 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-05-14 21:29 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-03 13:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-03 13:44 -------
Subject: Bug 27478
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Tue Oct 3 13:44:09 2006
New Revision: 117396
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117396
Log:
PR middle-end/27478
* trans-decl.c (gfc_get_fake_result_decl): Mark var as
TREE_ADDRESSABLE.
* gfortran.dg/entry_8.f90: New test.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/entry_8.f90
Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/27478] entry and addressable and value-expr: and the gimplifier
2006-05-08 5:13 [Bug fortran/27478] New: getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator" johnurban at adelphia dot net
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-03 13:44 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-05-14 21:29 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-07-20 3:49 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-05-14 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-14 22:26 -------
Will not be fixed in 4.2.0; retargeting at 4.2.1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.2.0 |4.2.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/27478] entry and addressable and value-expr: and the gimplifier
2006-05-08 5:13 [Bug fortran/27478] New: getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator" johnurban at adelphia dot net
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2007-05-14 21:29 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-07-20 3:49 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-09 19:30 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-07-20 3:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.2.1 |4.2.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/27478] entry and addressable and value-expr: and the gimplifier
2006-05-08 5:13 [Bug fortran/27478] New: getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator" johnurban at adelphia dot net
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2007-07-20 3:49 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-10-09 19:30 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-01 16:54 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-10-09 19:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-09 19:21 -------
Change target milestone to 4.2.3, as 4.2.2 has been released.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.2.2 |4.2.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/27478] entry and addressable and value-expr: and the gimplifier
2006-05-08 5:13 [Bug fortran/27478] New: getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator" johnurban at adelphia dot net
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2007-10-09 19:30 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-02-01 16:54 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-01 17:24 ` [Bug middle-end/27478] [4.2 regression] " fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-02-01 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 -------
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.2.3 |4.2.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/27478] [4.2 regression] entry and addressable and value-expr: and the gimplifier
2006-05-08 5:13 [Bug fortran/27478] New: getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator" johnurban at adelphia dot net
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-01 16:54 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-02-01 17:24 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-27 22:06 ` [Bug middle-end/27478] [4.2 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-02-01 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|entry and addressable and |[4.2 regression] entry and
|value-expr: and the |addressable and value-expr:
|gimplifier |and the gimplifier
Target Milestone|4.2.4 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/27478] [4.2 Regression] entry and addressable and value-expr: and the gimplifier
2006-05-08 5:13 [Bug fortran/27478] New: getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator" johnurban at adelphia dot net
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-01 17:24 ` [Bug middle-end/27478] [4.2 regression] " fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-03-27 22:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-19 20:25 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-03-30 15:54 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-03-27 22:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to work|4.1.2 |4.1.2 4.3.0
Summary|[4.2 regression] entry and |[4.2 Regression] entry and
|addressable and value-expr: |addressable and value-expr:
|and the gimplifier |and the gimplifier
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/27478] [4.2 Regression] entry and addressable and value-expr: and the gimplifier
2006-05-08 5:13 [Bug fortran/27478] New: getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator" johnurban at adelphia dot net
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2008-03-27 22:06 ` [Bug middle-end/27478] [4.2 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-05-19 20:25 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-03-30 15:54 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-05-19 20:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-19 20:22 -------
4.2.4 is being released, changing milestones to 4.2.5.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.2.4 |4.2.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/27478] [4.2 Regression] entry and addressable and value-expr: and the gimplifier
2006-05-08 5:13 [Bug fortran/27478] New: getting ": error: invalid operand to binary operator" johnurban at adelphia dot net
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-19 20:25 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-03-30 15:54 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-03-30 15:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-30 15:54 -------
Closing 4.2 branch. The patch actually went on trunk before 4.2 branched.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to fail|4.2.0 |
Known to work|4.1.2 4.3.0 |4.1.2 4.2.0 4.3.0
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|4.2.5 |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27478
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread