By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
445,852 Members | 2,219 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 445,852 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Speed of finding a size of an array.

P: n/a
Hi,
a)
int grid[1010][1010];
Which of the following is faster?
1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010);
2. memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid));

b) Is there any faster alternative to initializing memory?

c) What is the difference between comp.lang.c and alt.comp.lang.c ?

d) Is there any performance difference in local and global array?

Thanking you
আন্নািজয়াত আলীম রােসল
Annajiat Alim Rasel
Secretary
BUCC
BRAC University Computer Club
BUCC: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/bucc
BUCC Programming Contest Wing:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/buacm
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/buacm

bu**@googlegroups.com
bu***@yahoogroups.com
bu***@googlegroups.com

Monga Crisis:
http://adnan.phpxperts.com/monga/
http://adnan.phpxperts.com/monga/feedback.php

Quote: I don't talk. I don't talk much. However, when I talk, I forget
to stop.

Dec 9 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
22 Replies


P: n/a
Annajiat wrote:

Hi,
a)
int grid[1010][1010];
Which of the following is faster?
1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010);
2. memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid));


1 would probably be faster.
sizeof grid is equal to 1010*1010*sizeof(int),
so 1 and 2 are different.
Usually when people ask "which is faster?"
they mean for two equivalent operations.

--
pete
Dec 9 '05 #2

P: n/a
Annajiat wrote:
Hi,
a)
int grid[1010][1010];
Which of the following is faster?
1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010);
2. memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid));
1. since you initialize only part of the array (typically
sizeof(int)/sizeof(char)) but this is probably not what you expected.
b) Is there any faster alternative to initializing memory?
int *g = (int*)grid;
int *p = g + 1010*1010;
while(p-- != g)
*p = 0;

?
c) What is the difference between comp.lang.c and alt.comp.lang.c ?
alt.
d) Is there any performance difference in local and global array?


should not.

a+, ld.
Dec 9 '05 #3

P: n/a
<an******@gmail.com> wrote:
int grid[1010][1010];
Which of the following is faster?
1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010);
2. memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid));
You probably meant:
1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010*sizeof(int));
Otherwise the two statements are not equivalent.

I would expect a modern compiler to compute
the result of "1010*1010*sizeof(int)" at compile
time, therefore there would be no difference
between 1. & 2.
If that is not the case, then the only difference
would be the time required to compute the product.
b) Is there any faster alternative to initializing memory? That depends on the target CPU, the compiler being used and
the details of the memset() provided in the C library you
are using.
c) What is the difference between comp.lang.c and alt.comp.lang.c ? I have not looked into alt.comp.lang.c, so I do not know
anything about its current contents, level, etc.
In general, anybody can create a newsgroup under the "alt."
hierarchy, creating a group under "comp." requires a formal
proposal & voting process.
d) Is there any performance difference in local and global array?

As in b) depends on CPU and compiler. You should run a test to
find out in your system.

Roberto Waltman

[ Please reply to the group, ]
[ return address is invalid. ]
Dec 9 '05 #4

P: n/a
In article <op********************************@4ax.com>,
Roberto Waltman <us****@rwaltman.net> wrote:
<an******@gmail.com> wrote:
int grid[1010][1010];
Which of the following is faster?
1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010);
2. memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid));


You probably meant:
1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010*sizeof(int));
Otherwise the two statements are not equivalent.

I would expect a modern compiler to compute
the result of "1010*1010*sizeof(int)" at compile
time, therefore there would be no difference
between 1. & 2.


You are overlooking a small, but important detail, which doesn't only
affect execution speed, but also correctness.
Dec 9 '05 #5

P: n/a
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:11:14 +0000, Christian Bau wrote:
In article <op********************************@4ax.com>,
Roberto Waltman <us****@rwaltman.net> wrote:
<an******@gmail.com> wrote:
>int grid[1010][1010];
>Which of the following is faster?
>1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010);
>2. memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid));


You probably meant:
1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010*sizeof(int));
Otherwise the two statements are not equivalent.

I would expect a modern compiler to compute
the result of "1010*1010*sizeof(int)" at compile
time, therefore there would be no difference
between 1. & 2.


You are overlooking a small, but important detail, which doesn't only
affect execution speed, but also correctness.


Great... I love puzzles.

memset sets byte and will *incorrectly* chop 0x3F2 to 0xF2. Subsequent
inspection of the array will then yield 0xF2F2F2F2 as raw integer value
which (probably) isn't what the OP expects (assuming a 32 bit integer).

Right?

Dec 9 '05 #6

P: n/a
Kleuskes & Moos <t.******@achter.de.del> writes:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:11:14 +0000, Christian Bau wrote:
In article <op********************************@4ax.com>,
Roberto Waltman <us****@rwaltman.net> wrote:
1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010*sizeof(int));

You are overlooking a small, but important detail, which doesn't only
affect execution speed, but also correctness.

Great... I love puzzles.

memset sets byte and will *incorrectly* chop 0x3F2 to 0xF2. Subsequent
inspection of the array will then yield 0xF2F2F2F2 as raw integer value
which (probably) isn't what the OP expects (assuming a 32 bit integer).

Right?


No. Completely wrong.
--
A competent C programmer knows how to write C programs correctly,
a C expert knows enough to argue with Dan Pop, and a C expert
expert knows not to bother.
Dec 9 '05 #7

P: n/a
<t.******@achter.de.del> wrote:
Christian Bau wrote:
Roberto Waltman <us****@rwaltman.net> wrote:
>int grid[1010][1010];
>Which of the following is faster?
>1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010);
>2. memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid));

You probably meant:
1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010*sizeof(int));
Otherwise the two statements are not equivalent.

I would expect a modern compiler to compute
the result of "1010*1010*sizeof(int)" at compile
time, therefore there would be no difference
between 1. & 2.


You are overlooking a small, but important detail, which doesn't only
affect execution speed, but also correctness.


Great... I love puzzles.

memset sets byte and will *incorrectly* chop 0x3F2 to 0xF2. Subsequent
inspection of the array will then yield 0xF2F2F2F2 as raw integer value
which (probably) isn't what the OP expects (assuming a 32 bit integer).

Right?


Wrong. And no puzzle here. Christian refers to the
fact that "memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid))" will always
have the correct size of grid, while the correctness
of the other statement depends on the programmer
updating it manually if the size of grid changes.

Roberto Waltman

[ Please reply to the group, ]
[ return address is invalid. ]
Dec 9 '05 #8

P: n/a
Kleuskes & Moos <t.******@achter.de.del> writes:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:11:14 +0000, Christian Bau wrote:
In article <op********************************@4ax.com>,
Roberto Waltman <us****@rwaltman.net> wrote:
<an******@gmail.com> wrote:
>int grid[1010][1010];
>Which of the following is faster?
>1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010);
>2. memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid));

You probably meant:
1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010*sizeof(int));
Otherwise the two statements are not equivalent.

I would expect a modern compiler to compute
the result of "1010*1010*sizeof(int)" at compile
time, therefore there would be no difference
between 1. & 2.


You are overlooking a small, but important detail, which doesn't only
affect execution speed, but also correctness.


Great... I love puzzles.

memset sets byte and will *incorrectly* chop 0x3F2 to 0xF2. Subsequent
inspection of the array will then yield 0xF2F2F2F2 as raw integer value
which (probably) isn't what the OP expects (assuming a 32 bit integer).


Nope. 0x3F2 is 1010 decimal, and is used in the third argument to
memset(), which is of type size_t. It's not truncated to a byte.

You'll find the answer in other responses in this thread. If you want
to figure it out for yourself, ask yourself why these two:
memset(grid,0,1010*1010);
memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid));
are *not* equivalent.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Dec 9 '05 #9

P: n/a
In article <pa****************************@achter.de.del>,
Kleuskes & Moos <t.******@achter.de.del> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:11:14 +0000, Christian Bau wrote:
In article <op********************************@4ax.com>,
Roberto Waltman <us****@rwaltman.net> wrote:
<an******@gmail.com> wrote:
>int grid[1010][1010];
>Which of the following is faster?
>1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010);
>2. memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid));

You probably meant:
1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010*sizeof(int));
Otherwise the two statements are not equivalent.

I would expect a modern compiler to compute
the result of "1010*1010*sizeof(int)" at compile
time, therefore there would be no difference
between 1. & 2.


You are overlooking a small, but important detail, which doesn't only
affect execution speed, but also correctness.


Great... I love puzzles.

memset sets byte and will *incorrectly* chop 0x3F2 to 0xF2. Subsequent
inspection of the array will then yield 0xF2F2F2F2 as raw integer value
which (probably) isn't what the OP expects (assuming a 32 bit integer).


The first one sets 1010 * 1010 bytes.
The second one sets 1010 * 1010 ints. Which is usually two or four times
more than 1010 bytes.
Dec 9 '05 #10

P: n/a
In article <0a********************************@4ax.com>,
Roberto Waltman <us****@rwaltman.net> wrote:
<t.******@achter.de.del> wrote:
Christian Bau wrote:
Roberto Waltman <us****@rwaltman.net> wrote:
>int grid[1010][1010];
>Which of the following is faster?
>1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010);
>2. memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid));

You probably meant:
1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010*sizeof(int));
Otherwise the two statements are not equivalent.

I would expect a modern compiler to compute
the result of "1010*1010*sizeof(int)" at compile
time, therefore there would be no difference
between 1. & 2.

You are overlooking a small, but important detail, which doesn't only
affect execution speed, but also correctness.


Great... I love puzzles.

memset sets byte and will *incorrectly* chop 0x3F2 to 0xF2. Subsequent
inspection of the array will then yield 0xF2F2F2F2 as raw integer value
which (probably) isn't what the OP expects (assuming a 32 bit integer).

Right?


Wrong. And no puzzle here. Christian refers to the
fact that "memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid))" will always
have the correct size of grid, while the correctness
of the other statement depends on the programmer
updating it manually if the size of grid changes.


Just to make sure we are talking about the same things:
>int grid[1010][1010];
>Which of the following is faster?
>1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010);
>2. memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid));


1. Contains an absolut blatant error that will make you wish you could
disappear in the ground when you spot it. You are probably looking for
some subtle mistake. There is nothing subtle about it.
Dec 9 '05 #11

P: n/a
Christian Bau <ch***********@cbau.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Roberto Waltman <us****@rwaltman.net> wrote: You probably meant:
> 1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010*sizeof(int));
> Otherwise the two statements are not equivalent.
The first one sets 1010 * 1010 bytes.
The second one sets 1010 * 1010 ints. Which is usually two or four times
more than 1010 bytes.


Unless I'm missing something, Roberto was aware of that difference and
said so.

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
Dec 9 '05 #12

P: n/a
In article <dn**********@chessie.cirr.com>,
Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> wrote:
Christian Bau <ch***********@cbau.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Roberto Waltman <us****@rwaltman.net> wrote:> You probably meant:
>> 1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010*sizeof(int));
>> Otherwise the two statements are not equivalent.
The first one sets 1010 * 1010 bytes.
The second one sets 1010 * 1010 ints. Which is usually two or four times
more than 1010 bytes.
Unless I'm missing something, Roberto was aware of that difference and
said so.


It seems I was completely thrown off by the second sentence of his reply
I would expect a modern compiler to compute
the result of "1010*1010*sizeof(int)" at compile
time, therefore there would be no difference
between 1. & 2.


and somehow missed that _he_ was the one who posted the correction from
>> 1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010);
to
>> 1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010*sizeof(int));


Apologies. My fault.
Dec 9 '05 #13

P: n/a
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 10:45:48 -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
Kleuskes & Moos <t.******@achter.de.del> writes:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:11:14 +0000, Christian Bau wrote:
In article <op********************************@4ax.com>,
Roberto Waltman <us****@rwaltman.net> wrote:
1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010*sizeof(int));
You are overlooking a small, but important detail, which doesn't only
affect execution speed, but also correctness.

Great... I love puzzles.

memset sets byte and will *incorrectly* chop 0x3F2 to 0xF2. Subsequent
inspection of the array will then yield 0xF2F2F2F2 as raw integer value
which (probably) isn't what the OP expects (assuming a 32 bit integer).

Right?


No. Completely wrong.


Yup. No apologies. I looked through my nostrils on that one.

Dec 10 '05 #14

P: n/a
Christian Bau wrote:
In article <0a********************************@4ax.com>,
Roberto Waltman <us****@rwaltman.net> wrote:
<t.******@achter.de.del> wrote:
Christian Bau wrote:
Roberto Waltman <us****@rwaltman.net> wrote:

>>int grid[1010][1010];
>>Which of the following is faster?
>>1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010);
>>2. memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid));
>
>You probably meant:
> 1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010*sizeof(int));
>Otherwise the two statements are not equivalent.
>
>I would expect a modern compiler to compute
>the result of "1010*1010*sizeof(int)" at compile
>time, therefore there would be no difference
>between 1. & 2.

You are overlooking a small, but important detail, which doesn't only
affect execution speed, but also correctness.

Great... I love puzzles.

memset sets byte and will *incorrectly* chop 0x3F2 to 0xF2. Subsequent
inspection of the array will then yield 0xF2F2F2F2 as raw integer value
which (probably) isn't what the OP expects (assuming a 32 bit integer).

Right?


Wrong. And no puzzle here. Christian refers to the
fact that "memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid))" will always
have the correct size of grid, while the correctness
of the other statement depends on the programmer
updating it manually if the size of grid changes.


Just to make sure we are talking about the same things:
>>int grid[1010][1010];
>>Which of the following is faster?
>>1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010);
>>2. memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid));
1. Contains an absolut blatant error that will make you wish you could
disappear in the ground when you spot it. You are probably looking for
some subtle mistake. There is nothing subtle about it.


Sorry, Christian 2, you are wrong. Christian 1 saw the above
>You probably meant:
> 1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010*sizeof(int));
and took it into consideration when writing
You are overlooking a small, but important detail, which doesn't
only affect execution speed, but also correctness.


Christian 1 was therefore referring to the fact that sizeof(grid) is a
the correct size, while 1010*1010*sizeof(int) is evaluated as
(int)(1010*1010) * sizeof(int), which overflows in the case that an int
is 16 bits and size_t is properly sized to permit a declaration of
int grid[1010][1010];

Right?

--
Thad

Dec 10 '05 #15

P: n/a
In article <43*********************@auth.newsreader.octanews. com>,
Thad Smith <Th*******@acm.org> wrote:
Christian Bau wrote:
In article <0a********************************@4ax.com>,
Roberto Waltman <us****@rwaltman.net> wrote:
<t.******@achter.de.del> wrote:
Christian Bau wrote:

> Roberto Waltman <us****@rwaltman.net> wrote:
>
>>>int grid[1010][1010];
>>>Which of the following is faster?
>>>1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010);
>>>2. memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid));
>>
>>You probably meant:
>> 1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010*sizeof(int));
>>Otherwise the two statements are not equivalent.
>>
>>I would expect a modern compiler to compute
>>the result of "1010*1010*sizeof(int)" at compile
>>time, therefore there would be no difference
>>between 1. & 2.
>
>You are overlooking a small, but important detail, which doesn't only
>affect execution speed, but also correctness.

Great... I love puzzles.

memset sets byte and will *incorrectly* chop 0x3F2 to 0xF2. Subsequent
inspection of the array will then yield 0xF2F2F2F2 as raw integer value
which (probably) isn't what the OP expects (assuming a 32 bit integer).

Right?

Wrong. And no puzzle here. Christian refers to the
fact that "memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid))" will always
have the correct size of grid, while the correctness
of the other statement depends on the programmer
updating it manually if the size of grid changes.


Just to make sure we are talking about the same things:
>>>int grid[1010][1010];
>>>Which of the following is faster?
>>>1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010);
>>>2. memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid));


1. Contains an absolut blatant error that will make you wish you could
disappear in the ground when you spot it. You are probably looking for
some subtle mistake. There is nothing subtle about it.


Sorry, Christian 2, you are wrong. Christian 1 saw the above
>>>>>You probably meant:
>>>>> 1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010*sizeof(int));
and took it into consideration when writing
>>>>You are overlooking a small, but important detail, which doesn't
>>>>only affect execution speed, but also correctness.


Christian 1 was therefore referring to the fact that sizeof(grid) is a
the correct size, while 1010*1010*sizeof(int) is evaluated as
(int)(1010*1010) * sizeof(int), which overflows in the case that an int
is 16 bits and size_t is properly sized to permit a declaration of
int grid[1010][1010];


No, Christian suffered from a severe lack of concentration. The problem
you spotted could have been used for some face saving, but I didn't spot
it (and there were maybe five years where I used implementations where
this would have been a problem, that is int = 16 bit and enough memory
for 1010 x 1010 ints).
Dec 10 '05 #16

P: n/a

"Annajiat" <an******@gmail.com> wrote
Hi,
a)
int grid[1010][1010];
Which of the following is faster?
1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010);
2. memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid));
Other people have pointed out this error.
However with a million elements, any difference in the way you call the
function will be totally trivial.
b) Is there any faster alternative to initializing memory?
Not in C. However you have over 4 million bytes to initialise. A lot of
computers are equipped with hardware which can clear or transfer memory in
parallel, and this may be the way to go.
c) What is the difference between comp.lang.c and alt.comp.lang.c ?
Dunno. d) Is there any performance difference in local and global array?

Not really. It is a micro-optimisation problem. One some systems the global
might be slightly faster (because of overhead in setting up the local
array), on other systems the local may be slightly faster (maybe because the
stack is more likely to be in the cache). But the difference is probably
trivial in comparison to the algorithm you use to manipuate the array.

Dec 10 '05 #17

P: n/a
"Malcolm" <re*******@btinternet.com> writes:
"Annajiat" <an******@gmail.com> wrote
Hi,
a)
int grid[1010][1010];
Which of the following is faster?
1. memset(grid,0,1010*1010);
2. memset(grid,0,sizeof(grid));


Other people have pointed out this error.
However with a million elements, any difference in the way you call the
function will be totally trivial.
b) Is there any faster alternative to initializing memory?

Not in C. However you have over 4 million bytes to initialise. A lot of
computers are equipped with hardware which can clear or transfer memory in
parallel, and this may be the way to go.


And if so, memset() may use it if the implementer has chosen to
optimize it for a particular target CPU.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Dec 10 '05 #18

P: n/a

"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.org> wrote
Not in C. However you have over 4 million bytes to initialise. A lot of
computers are equipped with hardware which can clear or transfer memory
in
parallel, and this may be the way to go.


And if so, memset() may use it if the implementer has chosen to
optimize it for a particular target CPU.

The problem is that, in ANSI C

memset(array, 0, HUGE_NUMBER);
if(array[index] == 0)
{
/* this condition must always be true */
}

However if the memory is being cleared in parallel, really you want to do
something useful whilst the clear takes place.
Dec 11 '05 #19

P: n/a
Malcolm wrote:
"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.org> wrote
Not in C. However you have over 4 million bytes to initialise. A lot of
computers are equipped with hardware which can clear or transfer memory
in
parallel, and this may be the way to go.
And if so, memset() may use it if the implementer has chosen to
optimize it for a particular target CPU.


The problem is that, in ANSI C

memset(array, 0, HUGE_NUMBER);
if(array[index] == 0)
{
/* this condition must always be true */


Only for suitable types of `array'.
}

However if the memory is being cleared in parallel, really you want to do
something useful whilst the clear takes place.


Sorry; nobody named "comp.programming.threads" lives
here. You must have a wrong number.

(More seriously, C's model of the computing universe is
single-threaded and synchronous. If I were looking for things
to parallelize in C, I'd not worry about memset() until after
I'd done something about I/O.)

--
Eric Sosman
es*****@acm-dot-org.invalid

Dec 11 '05 #20

P: n/a

"Annajiat" <an******@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g47g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

<snip>

c) What is the difference between comp.lang.c and alt.comp.lang.c ?

Neither of the two news group servers I use list this.
Dec 11 '05 #21

P: n/a

"Eric Sosman" <es*****@acm-dot-org.invalid> wrote
(More seriously, C's model of the computing universe is
single-threaded and synchronous. If I were looking for things
to parallelize in C, I'd not worry about memset() until after
I'd done something about I/O.)

If you were a games programmer you'd have something called a DMA engine,
which will do block transfers and clears in parallel.
DMAmemcpy() is one of the first things to implement / learn how to use.

You do of course also have to learn how to use a pipelined graphics system,
and parallel audio. We cannot blank the screen every time a baddie dies with
a catchy tune.
Dec 11 '05 #22

P: n/a
Malcolm wrote:
"Eric Sosman" <es*****@acm-dot-org.invalid> wrote
(More seriously, C's model of the computing universe is
single-threaded and synchronous. If I were looking for things
to parallelize in C, I'd not worry about memset() until after
I'd done something about I/O.)


If you were a games programmer you'd have something called a DMA engine,
which will do block transfers and clears in parallel.
DMAmemcpy() is one of the first things to implement / learn how to use.


Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs. I was
writing parallel code before C was invented, running
simultaneous programs in the CPU and in the hardware of
two independent I/O channels, and getting the whole thing
to synchronize. Real-time streaming quadrophonic audio
from disk to A-to-D converter, using 1960's hardware.
(Full disclosure: The original version of this program
was written by someone else, but I wound up owning it for
a couple of years and extended it in various ways. I
learned a lot by reading that other guy's code; he was a
really good craftsman.)

Oddly enough, some of the now-unfashionable languages
and libraries of the time were able to overlap I/O with
processing, a capability lacking in C's simple model.
Nowadays we try to parallelize by foisting the problem
off on the O/S; this is effective to some extent, but
involves some compromises in throughput. I recently
trouble-shot a customer problem that arose entirely from
relying on the O/S to do the program's buffering for it;
if the program's I/O model had allowed it to control its
own buffering the problem would never have arisen.

--
Eric Sosman
es*****@acm-dot-org.invalid
Dec 11 '05 #23

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.