RFC-2229: Implement Precise Capture Analysis #78801

arora-aman · 2020-11-06T06:54:41Z

This PR introduces

Feature gate for RFC-2229 (incomplete) capture_disjoint_field
Rustc Attribute to print out the capture analysis rustc_capture_analysis
Precise capture analysis

Description of the analysis

If the feature gate is not set then all variables that are not local to the closure will be added to the list of captures. (This is for backcompat)
The rest of the analysis is based entirely on how the captured Places are used within the closure. Precise information (i.e. projections) about the Place is maintained throughout.
To reduce the amount of information we need to keep track of, we do a minimization step. In this step, we determine a list such that no Place within this list represents an ancestor path to another entry in the list. Check Ensure minimal places are captured project-rfc-2229#9 for more detailed examples.
To keep the compiler functional as before we implement a Bridge between the results of this new analysis to existing data structures used for closure captures. Note the new capture analysis results are only part of MaybeTypeckTables that is the information is only available during typeck-ing.

Known issues

Statements like let _ = x will make the compiler ICE when used within a closure with the feature enabled. More generally speaking the issue is caused by let statements that create no bindings and are init'ed using a Place expression.

Testing

We removed the code that would handle the case where the feature gate is not set, to enable the feature as default and did a bors try and perf run. More information here: #78762

Thanks

This has been slowly in the works for a while now.
I want to call out @Azhng @ChrisPardy @null-sleep @jenniferwills @logmosier @roxelo for working on this and the previous PRs that led up to this, @nikomatsakis for guiding us.

Closes rust-lang/project-rfc-2229#7
Closes rust-lang/project-rfc-2229#9
Closes rust-lang/project-rfc-2229#6
Closes rust-lang/project-rfc-2229#19

r? @nikomatsakis

arora-aman · 2020-11-06T07:00:37Z

cc #76005. This PR implements part of the solution needed. Once writeback is done (rust-lang/project-rfc-2229#18), the issue can hopefully be closed.

mark-i-m · 2020-11-07T01:13:32Z

Wow so exciting! Thank you @arora-aman (and Niko and @blitzerr and I'm sure many others I'm missing)!

nikomatsakis

didn't make it all the way through yet :) will read more later, but here are some comments.

compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/mod.rs

nikomatsakis · 2020-11-07T11:36:54Z

compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/mod.rs

+///
+/// For closure `fix_s`, (at a high level) the IndexMap will contain:
+///
+/// Place { V1, [ProjectionKind::Field(Index=0, Variant=0)] } : CaptureKind { E1, ImmutableBorrow }


You should show the whole data structure. I think it looks like:

V1 -> [ Place { V1, [ProjectionKind::Field(Index=0, Variant=0)] } : CaptureKind { E1, ImmutableBorrow }, Place { V1, [ProjectionKind::Field(Index=1, Variant=0)] } : CaptureKind { E2, MutableBorrow } ]

Right?

This is the output of the first pass (ignoring the init step for backcompat) which doesn't aggregate based on root variable. The aggregation happens as part of min capture pass.

This is later moved to upvars.rs when we implement Min Capture Analysis since we don't store the result of this in the TypeckResults.

compiler/rustc_typeck/src/check/upvar.rs

compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/context.rs

compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/mod.rs

compiler/rustc_typeck/src/check/upvar.rs

bors · 2020-11-09T03:29:31Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #78889) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

Note that reviewers usually do not review pull requests until merge conflicts are resolved! Once you resolve the conflicts, you should change the labels applied by bors to indicate that your PR is ready for review. Post this as a comment to change the labels:

@rustbot modify labels: +S-waiting-on-review -S-waiting-on-author

arora-aman · 2020-11-09T05:56:07Z

@rustbot modify labels: +S-waiting-on-review -S-waiting-on-author

arora-aman

Rebased and address the comments.

I couldn't seem to reply directly to your comments for some reason.

compiler/rustc_typeck/src/check/upvar.rs

arora-aman · 2020-11-08T02:59:54Z

compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/mod.rs

+///
+/// For closure `fix_s`, (at a high level) the IndexMap will contain:
+///
+/// Place { V1, [ProjectionKind::Field(Index=0, Variant=0)] } : CaptureKind { E1, ImmutableBorrow }


This is the output of the first pass (ignoring the init step for backcompat) which doesn't aggregate based on root variable. The aggregation happens as part of min capture pass.

This is later moved to upvars.rs when we implement Min Capture Analysis since we don't store the result of this in the TypeckResults.

compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/mod.rs

compiler/rustc_typeck/src/check/upvar.rs

nikomatsakis · 2020-11-09T21:18:43Z

compiler/rustc_typeck/src/expr_use_visitor.rs

+                if upvars.map_or(body_owner_is_closure, |upvars| !upvars.contains_key(var_hir_id)) {
+                    // The nested closure might be capturing the current (enclosing) closure's local variables.
+                    // We check if the root variable is ever mentioned within the enclosing closure, if not
+                    // then for the current body (if it's a closure) these aren't captures, we will ignore them.


We don't have logic like this before -- what changed? I'm not sure I quite understand the example.

I guess overall I'm confused about the role of body_owner_is_closure... can you clarify a bit?

Previously we had two structures, closure_captures and upvar_capture_map. We would read what is captured from the first and check the capture kind in the latter. ExprUseVisitor only affects upvar_capture_map so it didn't matter if it contains extra entries since the extra entries (captures of the nested closure that are local variables of the enclosing) aren't listed as captures they aren't read.

We have now aggregated the two maps in one, so we need to be more careful.

The reason body_owner_is_closure is required is because Clippy might use this over a function body, in which case we want to report this back but we don't have upvars because the body is not a closure.

src/test/ui/closures/2229_closure_analysis/arrays-completely-captured.rs

src/test/ui/closures/2229_closure_analysis/capture-disjoint-field-struct.rs

nikomatsakis · 2020-11-09T21:28:12Z

src/test/ui/closures/2229_closure_analysis/nested-closure.rs

+    || {
+        println!("{}", p.x);
+        //~^ ERROR: Capturing p[(0, 0)] -> ImmBorrow
+        //~^^ ERROR: Min Capture p[(0, 0)] -> ImmBorrow


Doesn't this outer closure have to capture p[(1, 0)], so that it can be given to the inner closure when that inner closure is created?

The enclosing closure captures that, we capture it via MutBorrow which happens in the nested closure. (See the double error thrown for p[1, 0] thrown within c2.

nikomatsakis · 2020-11-09T21:28:39Z

src/test/ui/closures/2229_closure_analysis/nested-closure.rs

+        //~^^^^^ ERROR: Capturing p[(1, 0)] -> MutBorrow
+        //~^^^^^^ ERROR: Min Capture p[(1, 0)] -> MutBorrow
+        c2();
+        println!("{}", p.y);


not to mention, I guess, the direct use of p.y here?

This is an ImmBorrow. The nested closure uses it via MutBorrow, so we escalate to that. (Since the outer closure must capture p.y with at least the same CaptureKind as the nested closure).

arora-aman · 2020-11-10T07:47:58Z

compiler/rustc_typeck/src/expr_use_visitor.rs

+                if upvars.map_or(body_owner_is_closure, |upvars| !upvars.contains_key(var_hir_id)) {
+                    // The nested closure might be capturing the current (enclosing) closure's local variables.
+                    // We check if the root variable is ever mentioned within the enclosing closure, if not
+                    // then for the current body (if it's a closure) these aren't captures, we will ignore them.


The reason body_owner_is_closure is required is because Clippy might use this over a function body, in which case we want to report this back but we don't have upvars because the body is not a closure.

arora-aman · 2020-11-10T08:03:00Z

compiler/rustc_typeck/src/expr_use_visitor.rs

+
+                    let upvar_id = if body_owner_is_closure {
+                        // Mark the place to be captured by the enclosing closure
+                        ty::UpvarId::new(*var_hir_id, self.body_owner)


If the main body which contains this closure (whose captures we are currently processing) is a Closure itself then we want to reflect that in the UpvarId that the closure capturing the Place now is the enclosing closure.

We had similar logic before where we would fake create a place using cat_captured_var which is now removed (diff at the bottom of this file or if this link works). Just one thing to note about that is that it calls into mc which is being from the perspective of the body owner here and already has the body_owner def id. It gets passed to mc in ExprUseVisitor::new. We just now keep a copy of that variable in expr_use_visitor.

This is also critical to do because upvar_capture_map is indexed with UpvarId which essentially contains (var_hir_id, closure_local_def_id), so want to ensure that the variable is captured with respect to the enclosing closure.

In the case where the body (that contains this closure) being processed isn't a closure, we don't update because if we did, we will be setting the closure_def_id within UpvarId to a non-closure id.

Okay so there is a small problem here, we initially had

fn cat_captured_var( &mut self, closure_hir_id: hir::HirId, closure_span: Span, var_id: hir::HirId, ) -> mc::McResult<PlaceWithHirId<'tcx>> { // Create the place for the variable being borrowed, from the // perspective of the creator (parent) of the closure. let var_ty = self.mc.node_ty(var_id)?; self.mc.cat_res(closure_hir_id, closure_span, var_ty, Res::Local(var_id)) }

this here, which would do 2 things:

Create a fake Place with no projections,

but more importantly, select the PlaceBase based on if the variable was local/upvar to the parent or not.

Essentially the else case needs to a PlaceBase::Local(var_hir_id).

The if doesn't change because we know if the body owner is a closure then the currently being processed place is captured by it. (The check before we iterate the min captures for a variable help with that)

This else changes to be a Place::Local. Since from the perspective of a non-closure body owner, it's always going to be a local variable.

This is the reason Clippy tests are failing.

Just a side note I would've expected bors try to have caught this, but I guess it runs a smaller set of a test suite?

I don't think bors try runs any tests tbh, and it can succeed even if the PR can't build the some of the tools, for example. You can make it run tests but that's more involved and t-infra could explain: IIRC you have to add a temporary commit in your PR to modify the CI toml files, turning the try builder into a test running builder, then try that and remove the commit before landing

I should also mention that usually the tools' tests don't cause the PR to fail, it just changes the "toolstate" (in this case, clippy would have gone from "test pass" to "test fail", some other tools could regress as well), and the failing tool's team can then fix that (with the PR author's help). This time we're in the week to cut the new beta, and no PR regressing the tools can land during this period. If you can't fix the clippy tests, this PR can still land next week: https://forge.rust-lang.org/index.html#no-tools-breakage-week

Continuing the discussion on Zulip t-infra

arora-aman · 2020-11-10T09:09:27Z

@nikomatsakis updated :)

bors · 2020-11-10T13:55:33Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #78904) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

Note that reviewers usually do not review pull requests until merge conflicts are resolved! Once you resolve the conflicts, you should change the labels applied by bors to indicate that your PR is ready for review. Post this as a comment to change the labels:

@rustbot modify labels: +S-waiting-on-review -S-waiting-on-author

Co-authored-by: Archer Zhang <archer.xn@gmail.com>

Signed-off-by: Aman Arora <me@aman-arora.com>

Co-authored-by: Dhruv Jauhar <dhruvjhr@gmail.com>

Co-authored-by: Chris Pardy <chrispardy36@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Logan Mosier <logmosier@gmail.com>

Co-authored-by: Jenny Wills <wills.jenniferg@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Aman Arora <me@aman-arora.com>

arora-aman · 2020-11-11T03:57:00Z

Added a test for enums in closures with the rebase.

arora-aman · 2020-11-11T04:13:27Z

@rustbot modify labels: +S-waiting-on-review -S-waiting-on-author

nikomatsakis

OK, I think I understand the tests now. This is looking great! I left one nit.

nikomatsakis · 2020-11-12T15:39:35Z

compiler/rustc_typeck/src/check/upvar.rs

+        self.tcx.has_attr(closure_def_id, sym::rustc_capture_analysis)
+    }
+
+    fn log_closure_capture_info(


so this is logging every capture...

Renamed the function to express the intent more clearly

nikomatsakis · 2020-11-12T15:39:46Z

compiler/rustc_typeck/src/check/upvar.rs

+        }
+    }
+
+    fn log_closure_min_capture_info(&self, closure_def_id: DefId, closure_span: Span) {


....and this is logging the minimum captures ...?

nikomatsakis · 2020-11-12T15:47:07Z

compiler/rustc_typeck/src/check/upvar.rs

+                let output_str = format!("Capturing {}", capture_str);
+
+                let span = capture_info.expr_id.map_or(closure_span, |e| self.tcx.hir().span(e));
+                self.tcx.sess.span_err(span, &output_str);


One thought I have for how to make this clearer is to add a "note" that indicates which closure this is captured by. Something like:

let mut diag = self.tcx.sess.struct_span_err(span, &output); diag.span_note(closure_span, "captured by this closure"); diag.emit();

jonas-schievink · 2020-11-14T00:06:59Z

@bors rollup=never

…akis RFC-2229: Implement Precise Capture Analysis ### This PR introduces - Feature gate for RFC-2229 (incomplete) `capture_disjoint_field` - Rustc Attribute to print out the capture analysis `rustc_capture_analysis` - Precise capture analysis ### Description of the analysis 1. If the feature gate is not set then all variables that are not local to the closure will be added to the list of captures. (This is for backcompat) 2. The rest of the analysis is based entirely on how the captured `Place`s are used within the closure. Precise information (i.e. projections) about the `Place` is maintained throughout. 3. To reduce the amount of information we need to keep track of, we do a minimization step. In this step, we determine a list such that no Place within this list represents an ancestor path to another entry in the list. Check rust-lang/project-rfc-2229#9 for more detailed examples. 4. To keep the compiler functional as before we implement a Bridge between the results of this new analysis to existing data structures used for closure captures. Note the new capture analysis results are only part of MaybeTypeckTables that is the information is only available during typeck-ing. ### Known issues - Statements like `let _ = x` will make the compiler ICE when used within a closure with the feature enabled. More generally speaking the issue is caused by `let` statements that create no bindings and are init'ed using a Place expression. ### Testing We removed the code that would handle the case where the feature gate is not set, to enable the feature as default and did a bors try and perf run. More information here: rust-lang#78762 ### Thanks This has been slowly in the works for a while now. I want to call out `@Azhng` `@ChrisPardy` `@null-sleep` `@jenniferwills` `@logmosier` `@roxelo` for working on this and the previous PRs that led up to this, `@nikomatsakis` for guiding us. Closes rust-lang/project-rfc-2229#7 Closes rust-lang/project-rfc-2229#9 Closes rust-lang/project-rfc-2229#6 Closes rust-lang/project-rfc-2229#19 r? `@nikomatsakis`

bors · 2020-11-14T02:02:12Z

⌛ Testing commit c50e57f with merge e914809e6f7c1a822b4b51001a92f3ed6fbc09b6...

bors · 2020-11-14T02:47:07Z

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

lqd · 2020-11-14T09:55:24Z

Some of the blessed tests seem to cause the failure (or a transient problem on CI as the failures appear confusing to t-infra)

arora-aman · 2020-11-14T20:50:27Z

Clippy tests are failing. I didn't bless them and they shouldn't be blessed. This is an actual error. Part of the problem is explained in the thread above. The fix there didn't resolve the issue when I tried locally so I need to investigate more to get a complete picture.

compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/mod.rs

compiler/rustc_typeck/src/expr_use_visitor.rs

arora-aman · 2020-11-15T18:44:41Z

Clippy tests are failing. I didn't bless them and they shouldn't be blessed. This is an actual error. Part of the problem is explained in the thread above. The fix there didn't resolve the issue when I tried locally so I need to investigate more to get a complete picture.

The other part of the problem is that Clippy uses ExprUseVisitor after Typeck writeback. Since we don't writeback closure_min_captures just yet, we don't see any captures for the closures when Clippy walks captures for closures. This also prevents us from hitting the other issue I mentioned.

For example for white_let_on_iterator::issue3670 (one of the failing tests)

   7   │   unvars_mentioned=Some(
   8   │     {
   9   │         HirId {
  10   │             owner: DefId(0:3 ~ while_let_on_iterator[317d]::issue3670),
  11   │             local_id: 2,
  12   │         }: Upvar {
  13   │             span: $DIR/while_let_on_iterator.rs:14:34: 14:38 (#0),
  14   │         },
  15   │     },
  16   │ ) closure_captures={
  17   │     DefId(0:4 ~ while_let_on_iterator[317d]::issue3670::{closure#0}): {
  18   │         HirId {
  19   │             owner: DefId(0:3 ~ while_let_on_iterator[317d]::issue3670),
  20   │             local_id: 2,
  21   │         }: UpvarId(HirId { owner: DefId(0:3 ~ while_let_on_iterator[317d]::issue3670), local_id: 2 };`ite
       │ r`;DefId(0:4 ~ while_let_on_iterator[317d]::issue3670::{closure#0})),
  22   │     },
  23   │ }
  24   │  min_caps={}

Clippy uses `ExprUseVisitor` and atleast in some cases it runs after writeback. We currently don't writeback the min_capture results of closure capture analysis since no place within the compiler itself uses it. In the short term to fix clippy we add a fallback when walking captures of a closure to check if closure_capture analysis has any entries in it. Writeback for closure_min_captures will be implemented in rust-lang/project-rfc-2229#18

compiler/rustc_typeck/src/expr_use_visitor.rs

nikomatsakis · 2020-11-16T20:34:48Z

@bors r+

bors · 2020-11-16T20:34:49Z

📌 Commit 40dfe1e has been approved by nikomatsakis

bors · 2020-11-17T03:56:08Z

⌛ Testing commit 40dfe1e with merge b5c37e8...

bors · 2020-11-17T06:37:53Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: nikomatsakis
Pushing b5c37e8 to master...

rust-highfive assigned nikomatsakis Nov 6, 2020

rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Nov 6, 2020

nikomatsakis reviewed Nov 7, 2020

View reviewed changes

arora-aman force-pushed the min_capture branch from 4a19caf to c2deba7 Compare November 9, 2020 05:51

arora-aman commented Nov 9, 2020

View reviewed changes

nikomatsakis reviewed Nov 9, 2020

View reviewed changes

arora-aman commented Nov 10, 2020

View reviewed changes

arora-aman and others added 13 commits November 10, 2020 20:44

Use Places to express closure/generator Captures

127a6ed

Co-authored-by: Archer Zhang <archer.xn@gmail.com>

Indroduce feature flag for RFC-2229

88310cc

Signed-off-by: Aman Arora <me@aman-arora.com>

Add initial set of testcases for RFC 2229

58e8f8f

Co-authored-by: Dhruv Jauhar <dhruvjhr@gmail.com>

Add helper function for Capture Esclations and expressions

1453120

Co-authored-by: Dhruv Jauhar <dhruvjhr@gmail.com>

Initial work for doing minimum capture analysis for RFC-2229

8f0c0d6

Co-authored-by: Chris Pardy <chrispardy36@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Logan Mosier <logmosier@gmail.com>

Update tests with min capture information

b16815b

Co-authored-by: Chris Pardy <chrispardy36@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Logan Mosier <logmosier@gmail.com>

Reduce verbosity of capture analysis logs

825e9e4

Co-authored-by: Jenny Wills <wills.jenniferg@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Aman Arora <me@aman-arora.com>

Handle let _ = x patterns in closure liveness analysis

fa38160

More pattern testcases

be77402

Remove local testing env var

abc4004

Address review comments

43423f6

Address review comments 2

deeb025

Add test for capturing enums

d0fac05

arora-aman force-pushed the min_capture branch from 0d4f82e to d0fac05 Compare November 11, 2020 03:55

nikomatsakis requested changes Nov 12, 2020

View reviewed changes

Dylan-DPC-zz mentioned this pull request Nov 14, 2020

Rollup of 12 pull requests #79037

Closed

bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Nov 14, 2020

bjorn3 reviewed Nov 15, 2020

View reviewed changes

compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/mod.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

bjorn3 reviewed Nov 15, 2020

View reviewed changes

compiler/rustc_typeck/src/expr_use_visitor.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

arora-aman added 2 commits November 15, 2020 17:09

Ignore doctest for capture analysis examples

40dfe1e

arora-aman force-pushed the min_capture branch from f44eb68 to 40dfe1e Compare November 15, 2020 23:59

nikomatsakis requested changes Nov 16, 2020

View reviewed changes

compiler/rustc_typeck/src/expr_use_visitor.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Nov 16, 2020

bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Nov 17, 2020

bors merged commit b5c37e8 into rust-lang:master Nov 17, 2020

rustbot added this to the 1.50.0 milestone Nov 17, 2020

arora-aman mentioned this pull request Nov 17, 2020

[DONT MERGE] Test min capture #78762

Closed

arora-aman deleted the min_capture branch November 17, 2020 07:54

m-ou-se mentioned this pull request Sep 3, 2021

🎉 Rust 2021 celebration and thanks #88623

Closed

RFC-2229: Implement Precise Capture Analysis #78801

RFC-2229: Implement Precise Capture Analysis #78801

Conversation

arora-aman commented Nov 6, 2020 • edited Loading

This PR introduces

Description of the analysis

Known issues

Testing

Thanks

arora-aman commented Nov 6, 2020 • edited Loading

mark-i-m commented Nov 7, 2020

nikomatsakis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bors commented Nov 9, 2020

arora-aman commented Nov 9, 2020

arora-aman left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

arora-aman Nov 9, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

arora-aman Nov 10, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lqd Nov 15, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

arora-aman Nov 15, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

arora-aman commented Nov 10, 2020

bors commented Nov 10, 2020

arora-aman commented Nov 11, 2020 • edited Loading

arora-aman commented Nov 11, 2020

nikomatsakis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

arora-aman Nov 13, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jonas-schievink commented Nov 14, 2020

bors commented Nov 14, 2020

bors commented Nov 14, 2020

lqd commented Nov 14, 2020 • edited Loading

arora-aman commented Nov 14, 2020 • edited Loading

arora-aman commented Nov 15, 2020 • edited Loading

nikomatsakis commented Nov 16, 2020

bors commented Nov 16, 2020

bors commented Nov 17, 2020

bors commented Nov 17, 2020

arora-aman commented Nov 6, 2020 •

edited

Loading

arora-aman commented Nov 6, 2020 •

edited

Loading

arora-aman left a comment •

edited

Loading

arora-aman Nov 9, 2020 •

edited

Loading

arora-aman Nov 10, 2020 •

edited

Loading

lqd Nov 15, 2020 •

edited

Loading

arora-aman Nov 15, 2020 •

edited

Loading

arora-aman commented Nov 11, 2020 •

edited

Loading

arora-aman Nov 13, 2020 •

edited

Loading

lqd commented Nov 14, 2020 •

edited

Loading

arora-aman commented Nov 14, 2020 •

edited

Loading

arora-aman commented Nov 15, 2020 •

edited

Loading