Odd error I can't seem to recreate

Discussion in 'C++' started by Noah Roberts, Nov 4, 2011.

  1. Noah Roberts

    Noah Roberts Guest

    In a significant code base I'm running into this problem:

    This works:
    test_service service;
    std::string result = job->run_query(service);

    This does not.:
    std::string result = job->run_query(test_service());

    the run_query function expects a const reference to test_service's
    base class:

    struct location_job
    {
    virtual ~location_job() {}

    virtual std::string run_query(location_service const& service) const
    = 0;
    };

    The error I get from g++4.1.2 is:

    pipe_processor_test.cpp:142: error: no matching function for call to
    âtest_service::test_service(test_service)â
    .../inc/test_service.h:27: note: candidates are:
    test_service::test_service(bool)
    .../inc/test_service.h:7: note:
    test_service::test_service(test_service&)

    The bool constructor is made by me, but the non-const copy constructor
    is the compiler's. Line 7 is the opening brace for the class.

    I can't make any sense of this. Does anyone have ANY idea what might
    be going on so I can try to narrow it down and create a minimal
    example to get better help? The attempts I've made so far work
    fine.

    Under what conditions in which the first could work might the second
    not when the parameter is const ref? I can't think of any.

    Thanks for any help that can be provided. I know it's a reach.
    Noah Roberts, Nov 4, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 11/4/2011 2:52 PM, Noah Roberts wrote:
    > In a significant code base I'm running into this problem:
    >
    > This works:
    > test_service service;
    > std::string result = job->run_query(service);
    >
    > This does not.:
    > std::string result = job->run_query(test_service());
    >
    > the run_query function expects a const reference to test_service's
    > base class:
    >
    > struct location_job
    > {
    > virtual ~location_job() {}
    >
    > virtual std::string run_query(location_service const& service) const
    > = 0;
    > };


    Seems like there is some kind of relationship between 'location_service'
    and 'test_service', but you decided to omit it. Perhaps you could
    elaborate? Is 'test_service' derived from 'location_service' as private
    or protected?

    > The error I get from g++4.1.2 is:
    >
    > pipe_processor_test.cpp:142: error: no matching function for call to
    > âtest_service::test_service(test_service)â
    > ../inc/test_service.h:27: note: candidates are:
    > test_service::test_service(bool)
    > ../inc/test_service.h:7: note:
    > test_service::test_service(test_service&)


    Is there the default c-tor for 'test_service'? I presume there is.

    So, 'test_service' copy constructor takes a non-const reference. To
    initialize the argument to your 'run_query', a temporary of type
    'location_service' has to be created (or has to be able to be created),
    and I am guessing there is no conversion that the compiler can use.

    When you supply a "real" object, not a temporary, the derived-to base
    conversion is used, and all is well.

    > The bool constructor is made by me, but the non-const copy constructor
    > is the compiler's.


    What??? Why would the compiler create a non-const copy c-tor? Or,
    rather, what have you done to tell it to create that particular form of
    the copy c-tor?

    > Line 7 is the opening brace for the class.
    >
    > I can't make any sense of this. Does anyone have ANY idea what might
    > be going on so I can try to narrow it down and create a minimal
    > example to get better help? The attempts I've made so far work
    > fine.
    >
    > Under what conditions in which the first could work might the second
    > not when the parameter is const ref? I can't think of any.
    >
    > Thanks for any help that can be provided. I know it's a reach.


    Please try to narrow it down by copying your classes into a separate
    module and gradually removing all that is irrelevant, while still trying
    to repeat the compiler behavior. Then post the remaining source, which
    by that time should be no larger than this:

    struct loc {
    loc() {}
    loc(loc&) {}
    };

    struct test : loc {
    test(test& t) : loc(t) {}
    test() : loc() {}
    };

    void foo(const loc&);

    int main()
    {
    foo(test()); // and here you should get an error

    test t;
    foo(t);
    }

    I don't get the error with Comeau online for this program, but (a) I was
    just guessing, and (b) that is a different compiler.

    V
    --
    I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
    Victor Bazarov, Nov 4, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Noah Roberts

    Noah Roberts Guest

    On Nov 4, 12:49 pm, Victor Bazarov <> wrote:
    > On 11/4/2011 2:52 PM, Noah Roberts wrote:


    > > The bool constructor is made by me, but the non-const copy constructor
    > > is the compiler's.

    >
    > What???  Why would the compiler create a non-const copy c-tor?  Or,
    > rather, what have you done to tell it to create that particular form of
    > the copy c-tor?
    >


    Yes, that bothers me a great deal as well, but for some reason g++
    seems to be making non-const copy constructors by default. Here's the
    class declarations:

    struct location_service // needs to be at least mockable.
    {
    virtual ~location_service() {}

    enum coord_format { DMS, DECIMAL };
    enum location_tech { LEAST, MOST, CELL, AGPS };

    typedef std::auto_ptr<service_response> response_t;

    // pure virtual calls...
    };

    #include "location_service.h"

    struct test_service : location_service
    {

    // overrides of inherited virtuals...

    test_service();
    test_service(bool sleeper);
    ~test_service();
    private:
    struct impl;
    std::auto_ptr<impl> pimpl;
    };

    No declaration of copy constructor anywhere. It's not the first time
    I've seen it and I'm assuming it's some sort of quirk/bug in g++
    4.1.2.

    Switches are:

    g++ -g $(INCLUDES) $(LIBFLAGS) $(WIN32_DEF) -DTEST -Wall -Werror -
    pedantic -Wno-long-long

    include flags are just a bunch of -I args. For libs I do a couple odd
    things:

    -Wl,-Bstatic $(CPPUNIT_LIBS) $(LOG_LIBS) -Wl,-Bdynamic -lpthread

    But not THAT odd...

    So I don't know WTF g++ is doing that for.
    Noah Roberts, Nov 4, 2011
    #3
  4. On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 19:52:56 +0100, Noah Roberts <>
    wrote:

    > In a significant code base I'm running into this problem:
    >
    > This works:
    > test_service service;
    > std::string result = job->run_query(service);
    >
    > This does not.:
    > std::string result = job->run_query(test_service());
    >
    > the run_query function expects a const reference to test_service's
    > base class:
    >
    > struct location_job
    > {
    > virtual ~location_job() {}
    >
    > virtual std::string run_query(location_service const& service) const
    > = 0;
    > };
    >
    > The error I get from g++4.1.2 is:
    >
    > pipe_processor_test.cpp:142: error: no matching function for call to
    > âtest_service::test_service(test_service)â
    > ../inc/test_service.h:27: note: candidates are:
    > test_service::test_service(bool)
    > ../inc/test_service.h:7: note:
    > test_service::test_service(test_service&)
    >
    > The bool constructor is made by me, but the non-const copy constructor
    > is the compiler's. Line 7 is the opening brace for the class.
    >
    > I can't make any sense of this. Does anyone have ANY idea what might
    > be going on so I can try to narrow it down and create a minimal
    > example to get better help? The attempts I've made so far work
    > fine.
    >
    > Under what conditions in which the first could work might the second
    > not when the parameter is const ref? I can't think of any.
    >
    > Thanks for any help that can be provided. I know it's a reach.


    Try looking at the copy constructors of test_service's members:

    - the direct and virtual base classes
    - the non-static data members

    At least one of them should have a copy constructor without
    const-qualification on the first parameter, which is why the
    compiler-generated copy constructor of test_service lacks it as
    well.

    --
    Gennaro Prota | name.surname gmail.com
    Breeze C++ (preview): <http://sourceforge.net/projects/breeze/>
    Do you need expertise in C++? I'm available.
    Gennaro Prota, Nov 4, 2011
    #4
  5. Noah Roberts

    Noah Roberts Guest

    On Nov 4, 1:03 pm, "Gennaro Prota" <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 19:52:56 +0100, Noah Roberts <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > In a significant code base I'm running into this problem:

    >
    > > This works:
    > > test_service service;
    > > std::string result = job->run_query(service);

    >
    > > This does not.:
    > > std::string result = job->run_query(test_service());

    >
    > > the run_query function expects a const reference to test_service's
    > > base class:

    >
    > > struct location_job
    > > {
    > >    virtual ~location_job() {}

    >
    > >    virtual std::string run_query(location_service const& service) const
    > > = 0;
    > > };

    >
    > > The error I get from g++4.1.2 is:

    >
    > > pipe_processor_test.cpp:142: error: no matching function for call to
    > > âtest_service::test_service(test_service)â
    > > ../inc/test_service.h:27: note: candidates are:
    > > test_service::test_service(bool)
    > > ../inc/test_service.h:7: note:
    > > test_service::test_service(test_service&)

    >
    > > The bool constructor is made by me, but the non-const copy constructor
    > > is the compiler's.  Line 7 is the opening brace for the class.

    >
    > > I can't make any sense of this.  Does anyone have ANY idea what might
    > > be going on so I can try to narrow it down and create a minimal
    > > example to get better help?  The attempts I've made so far work
    > > fine.

    >
    > > Under what conditions in which the first could work might the second
    > > not when the parameter is const ref?  I can't think of any.

    >
    > > Thanks for any help that can be provided.  I know it's a reach.

    >
    > Try looking at the copy constructors of test_service's members:
    >
    > - the direct and virtual base classes
    > - the non-static data members
    >
    > At least one of them should have a copy constructor without
    > const-qualification on the first parameter, which is why the
    > compiler-generated copy constructor of test_service lacks it as
    > well.


    Thanks. This does appear to be the main issue. There is an auto_ptr
    in the test_service.

    I recreated the problem:

    cat wtf.cpp
    #include <memory>

    struct base
    {
    virtual ~base() {}
    };

    struct derived : base
    {
    std::auto_ptr<int> i;
    derived() : i() {}
    //private:
    //derived(derived const&);
    };

    struct base;
    struct base2
    {
    virtual ~base2() {}
    virtual void fun(base const&) const = 0;
    };
    struct derived2 : base2
    {
    void fun(base const&) const {}
    };

    struct base3
    {
    virtual ~base3() {}
    virtual std::auto_ptr<base2> get() const = 0;
    };
    struct derived3 : base3
    {
    std::auto_ptr<base2> get() const { return
    std::auto_ptr<base2>(new derived2); }
    };

    int main()
    {
    derived3 d3;
    std::auto_ptr<base2> b2 = d3.get();
    b2->fun(derived());
    }


    Now I get all the errors I don't expect that are giving me crap in the
    original code:

    g++ wtf.cpp
    wtf.cpp: In function âint main()â:
    wtf.cpp:42: error: no matching function for call to
    âderived::derived(derived)â
    wtf.cpp:9: note: candidates are: derived::derived(derived&)

    Victor said:
    So, 'test_service' copy constructor takes a non-const reference. To
    initialize the argument to your 'run_query', a temporary of type
    'location_service' has to be created (or has to be able to be
    created),
    and I am guessing there is no conversion that the compiler can use.
    ..................

    As I understood it, because it takes a non-const reference the
    temporary created by the "test_service()" call should be directly
    used, rather than a copy of it attempted. Why is it necessary to make
    a temporary of 'location_service', or 'base' in the above code?
    Noah Roberts, Nov 4, 2011
    #5
  6. On 11/4/11 3:58 PM, Noah Roberts wrote:
    > On Nov 4, 12:49 pm, Victor Bazarov<> wrote:
    >> On 11/4/2011 2:52 PM, Noah Roberts wrote:

    >
    >>> The bool constructor is made by me, but the non-const copy constructor
    >>> is the compiler's.

    >>
    >> What??? Why would the compiler create a non-const copy c-tor? Or,
    >> rather, what have you done to tell it to create that particular form of
    >> the copy c-tor?
    >>

    >
    > Yes, that bothers me a great deal as well, but for some reason g++
    > seems to be making non-const copy constructors by default. Here's the
    > class declarations:
    >

    ....
    > struct test_service : location_service
    > {
    >
    > // overrides of inherited virtuals...
    >
    > test_service();
    > test_service(bool sleeper);
    > ~test_service();
    > private:
    > struct impl;
    > std::auto_ptr<impl> pimpl;
    > };
    >
    > No declaration of copy constructor anywhere. It's not the first time
    > I've seen it and I'm assuming it's some sort of quirk/bug in g++
    > 4.1.2.
    >

    Note that auto_ptr has a non-const copy constructor, as copying an
    auto_ptr changes the source auto pointer. Therefore any class that has
    an auto_ptr member will by default have a non-const copy constructor, as
    it can't make a const copy constructor.
    Richard Damon, Nov 4, 2011
    #6
  7. Noah Roberts

    Noah Roberts Guest

    On Nov 4, 11:52 am, Noah Roberts <> wrote:

    > Under what conditions in which the first could work might the second
    > not when the parameter is const ref?  I can't think of any.


    Here's a further revision of the problem code:

    cat wtf.cpp
    #include <memory>
    #include <iostream>

    struct base
    {
    virtual ~base() {}
    virtual void f() const = 0;
    };

    struct derived : base
    {
    #ifdef HUH
    private:
    derived(derived const&);
    #endif
    public:
    derived() {}
    void f() const { std::cout << "derived::f() \n"; }
    };

    struct base;
    struct base2
    {
    virtual ~base2() {}
    virtual void fun(base const&) const = 0;
    };
    struct derived2 : base2
    {
    void fun(base const& b) const { b.f(); }
    };

    struct base3
    {
    virtual ~base3() {}
    virtual std::auto_ptr<base2> get() const = 0;
    };
    struct derived3 : base3
    {
    std::auto_ptr<base2> get() const { return
    std::auto_ptr<base2>(new derived2); }
    };

    int main()
    {
    derived3 d3;
    std::auto_ptr<base2> b2 = d3.get();
    b2->fun(derived());
    }

    The result of compilation and run without -DHUH:

    $ g++ wtf.cpp
    $ ./a.out
    derived::f()

    The result with -DHUH:
    $ g++ -DHUH wtf.cpp
    wtf.cpp: In function âint main()â:
    wtf.cpp:14: error: âderived::derived(const derived&)â is private
    wtf.cpp:47: error: within this context

    So it appears that the problem is with the temporary being created,
    and that I don't understand. As far as I knew, const reference
    allowed you to use the initially created temporary directly. Where's
    the standard text that explains why it's doing this?
    Noah Roberts, Nov 4, 2011
    #7
  8. On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:03:55 +0100, Gennaro Prota
    <> wrote:

    > Try looking at the copy constructors of test_service's members:
    >
    > - the direct and virtual base classes
    > - the non-static data members
    >
    > At least one of them should have a copy constructor without
    > const-qualification on the first parameter, which is why the
    > compiler-generated copy constructor of test_service lacks it as
    > well.


    Poorly worded, sorry (although it shouldn't affect
    understandability). Should have been:

    Try looking at the copy constructors of test_service's:

    - direct and virtual base classes
    - non-static data member types (their elements in case of
    arrays)

    --
    Gennaro Prota | name.surname gmail.com
    Breeze C++ (preview): <http://sourceforge.net/projects/breeze/>
    Do you need expertise in C++? I'm available.
    Gennaro Prota, Nov 4, 2011
    #8
  9. On 11/4/2011 4:07 PM, Noah Roberts wrote:
    > [.. seems that auto_ptr is to blame ..]
    > I recreated the problem:
    >
    > cat wtf.cpp
    > #include<memory>
    >
    > struct base
    > {
    > virtual ~base() {}
    > };
    >
    > struct derived : base
    > {
    > std::auto_ptr<int> i;
    > derived() : i() {}
    > //private:
    > //derived(derived const&);
    > };
    >
    > struct base;
    > struct base2
    > {
    > virtual ~base2() {}
    > virtual void fun(base const&) const = 0;
    > };
    > struct derived2 : base2
    > {
    > void fun(base const&) const {}
    > };
    >
    > struct base3
    > {
    > virtual ~base3() {}
    > virtual std::auto_ptr<base2> get() const = 0;
    > };
    > struct derived3 : base3
    > {
    > std::auto_ptr<base2> get() const { return
    > std::auto_ptr<base2>(new derived2); }
    > };
    >
    > int main()
    > {
    > derived3 d3;
    > std::auto_ptr<base2> b2 = d3.get();
    > b2->fun(derived());
    > }


    Comeau online compiles it without even a blink. So does VC++ 2010 on my
    machine.

    > Now I get all the errors I don't expect that are giving me crap in the
    > original code:
    >
    > g++ wtf.cpp
    > wtf.cpp: In function âint main()â:
    > wtf.cpp:42: error: no matching function for call to
    > âderived::derived(derived)â
    > wtf.cpp:9: note: candidates are: derived::derived(derived&)
    >
    > Victor said:
    > So, 'test_service' copy constructor takes a non-const reference. To
    > initialize the argument to your 'run_query', a temporary of type
    > 'location_service' has to be created (or has to be able to be
    > created),
    > and I am guessing there is no conversion that the compiler can use.
    > .................
    >
    > As I understood it, because it takes a non-const reference the
    > temporary created by the "test_service()" call should be directly
    > used, rather than a copy of it attempted. Why is it necessary to make
    > a temporary of 'location_service', or 'base' in the above code?


    I may just as well be wrong here.

    So far I failed to reproduce your issue with another compiler. I don't
    have access to gcc/g++ at this time.

    Let's drop the auto_ptr member and try declaring our own copy-c-tor that
    takes a non-const ref...

    I've dropped the 'i' member from 'derived' and instead added a copy
    c-tor with a non-const ref argument, both Comeau online and VC++ still
    compiled it.

    Something is funky with g++, I am guessing. Can it compile this:

    struct base
    {
    virtual ~base() {}
    };

    struct derived : base
    {
    derived() : base() {}
    derived(derived& d) : base(d) {}
    };

    void fun(base const& b) { return; }

    int main()
    {
    derived d;
    fun(d);
    fun(derived());
    }

    ?

    V
    --
    I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
    Victor Bazarov, Nov 4, 2011
    #9
  10. Noah Roberts

    Noah Roberts Guest

    On Nov 4, 1:43 pm, Victor Bazarov <> wrote:

    > Something is funky with g++, I am guessing.  Can it compile this:
    >
    >     struct base
    >     {
    >        virtual ~base() {}
    >     };
    >
    >     struct derived : base
    >     {
    >        derived() : base() {}
    >        derived(derived& d) : base(d) {}
    >     };
    >
    >     void fun(base const& b) { return; }
    >
    >     int main()
    >     {
    >        derived d;
    >        fun(d);
    >        fun(derived());
    >     }


    Nope. It complains about the second fun call. No matching function
    for call to derived::derived(derived).
    Noah Roberts, Nov 4, 2011
    #10
  11. On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:56:29 +0100, Noah Roberts <>
    wrote:

    > On Nov 4, 1:43 pm, Victor Bazarov <> wrote:
    >
    >> Something is funky with g++, I am guessing. Can it compile this:
    >>
    >> struct base
    >> {
    >> virtual ~base() {}
    >> };
    >>
    >> struct derived : base
    >> {
    >> derived() : base() {}
    >> derived(derived& d) : base(d) {}
    >> };
    >>
    >> void fun(base const& b) { return; }
    >>
    >> int main()
    >> {
    >> derived d;
    >> fun(d);
    >> fun(derived());
    >> }

    >
    > Nope. It complains about the second fun call. No matching function
    > for call to derived::derived(derived).


    That's correct in C++03. The restriction has been lifted in C++11.

    --
    Gennaro Prota | name.surname gmail.com
    Breeze C++ (preview): <http://sourceforge.net/projects/breeze/>
    Do you need expertise in C++? I'm available.
    Gennaro Prota, Nov 4, 2011
    #11
  12. Noah Roberts

    Ian Collins Guest

    On 11/ 5/11 09:15 AM, Noah Roberts wrote:
    > On Nov 4, 11:52 am, Noah Roberts<> wrote:
    >
    >> Under what conditions in which the first could work might the second
    >> not when the parameter is const ref? I can't think of any.

    >
    > Here's a further revision of the problem code:
    >

    <snip>
    >
    > The result of compilation and run without -DHUH:
    >
    > $ g++ wtf.cpp
    > $ ./a.out
    > derived::f()
    >
    > The result with -DHUH:
    > $ g++ -DHUH wtf.cpp
    > wtf.cpp: In function âint main()â:
    > wtf.cpp:14: error: âderived::derived(const derived&)â is private
    > wtf.cpp:47: error: within this context
    >
    > So it appears that the problem is with the temporary being created,
    > and that I don't understand. As far as I knew, const reference
    > allowed you to use the initially created temporary directly. Where's
    > the standard text that explains why it's doing this?


    Compiler bug? It compiles fine with gcc 4.5.1.

    --
    Ian Collins
    Ian Collins, Nov 4, 2011
    #12
  13. On 04.11.2011 19:52, Noah Roberts wrote:
    > In a significant code base I'm running into this problem:
    >
    > This works:
    > test_service service;
    > std::string result = job->run_query(service);
    > This does not.:
    > std::string result = job->run_query(test_service());


    At this point the service object has been destroyed.

    And perhaps the query is running in the background?

    Oh, I see below that the problem isn't the obvious asynchronous one that
    I thought it was.

    Or perhaps the potential problem I mentioned above comes in addition.

    OK then, on to the real problem...


    > the run_query function expects a const reference to test_service's
    > base class:
    >
    > struct location_job
    > {
    > virtual ~location_job() {}
    >
    > virtual std::string run_query(location_service const& service) const
    > = 0;
    > };
    >
    > The error I get from g++4.1.2 is:
    >
    > pipe_processor_test.cpp:142: error: no matching function for call to
    > âtest_service::test_service(test_service)â
    > ../inc/test_service.h:27: note: candidates are:
    > test_service::test_service(bool)
    > ../inc/test_service.h:7: note:
    > test_service::test_service(test_service&)


    Well, first note that the formal argument is of type `location_service
    const&`, while the actual argument is of type `test_service`.

    Assumming that `test_service` is derived from `location_service`, or is
    the same class.

    Then apparently g++ abides by C++98 rules that require an accessible
    copy constructor, because C++98 allowed the compiler to introduce any
    number of temporaries. This was fixed in C++03. But with C++98 rules, a
    copy constructor must be accessible and the result is "as if" it's used,
    when you pass a temporary to T const&.

    And the test_service copy constructor has non-const formal argument,

    test_service&

    Hence it cannot be used for copying the actual argument.


    > The bool constructor is made by me, but the non-const copy constructor
    > is the compiler's. Line 7 is the opening brace for the class.


    It may have been generated due to presence of e.g. std::auto_ptr as member.

    Any data member or base class that has T(T&) forces that.

    It couldn't (logically) be any other way.


    > I can't make any sense of this. Does anyone have ANY idea what might
    > be going on so I can try to narrow it down and create a minimal
    > example to get better help? The attempts I've made so far work
    > fine.


    Yes, see above.


    > Under what conditions in which the first could work might the second
    > not when the parameter is const ref? I can't think of any.
    >
    > Thanks for any help that can be provided. I know it's a reach.



    Cheers & hth.,

    - Alf
    Alf P. Steinbach, Nov 5, 2011
    #13
  14. On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 18:48:15 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach
    <> wrote:

    > Then apparently g++ abides by C++98 rules that require an accessible
    > copy constructor, because C++98 allowed the compiler to introduce any
    > number of temporaries. This was fixed in C++03.


    I don't have the standard handy but I'm pretty sure that this
    was changed *after* C++03 (I think it all began with core issue
    391).

    --
    Gennaro Prota | name.surname gmail.com
    Breeze C++ (preview): <http://sourceforge.net/projects/breeze/>
    Do you need expertise in C++? I'm available.
    Gennaro Prota, Nov 5, 2011
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Carl Prothman [MVP]

    Re: how to recreate the default ASPNET account ?

    Carl Prothman [MVP], Aug 9, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    3,344
    Carl Prothman [MVP]
    Aug 9, 2003
  2. Mark
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    364
    Chris Jackson
    Feb 23, 2004
  3. kevinsaucier
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,485
    kevinsaucier
    May 12, 2005
  4. Johndoe
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    509
    Chris Fulstow
    Apr 13, 2006
  5. weston
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    121
    weston
    Jul 19, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page