468,278 Members | 1,490 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,278 developers. It's quick & easy.

Are there books about C data structures?

Hallo to everyone.
This fall I am going to start data structures as a part of C language
course. The problem is I could not find any satisfying tutorial about
structures in C. There are plenty of books about data structures in C+
+ etc., could anyone please recommend me such a C -specific book ? And
another question: are data structures (like stack, structure etc.)
used in C++ identical to those in C and is it possible to use C++
books to learn about the structures in C?

Aug 22 '07 #1
29 5951
On Aug 22, 4:39 pm, Mik0b0 <new...@gmail.comwrote:
Hallo to everyone.
This fall I am going to start data structures as a part of C language
course. The problem is I could not find any satisfying tutorial about
structures in C. There are plenty of books about data structures in C+
+ etc., could anyone please recommend me such a C -specific book ?
"Data Structures and Algorithm Analysis in C (Second Edition)"
by Mark Allen Weiss
ISBN: 0-201-49840-5
And
another question: are data structures (like stack, structure etc.)
used in C++ identical to those in C
No. In C++ we have templates. C has nothing like that.
and is it possible to use C++
books to learn about the structures in C?
Will you read an airplane manual to understand your car?
The approach for a data structure in C++ will not be like the approach
in C.

Aug 23 '07 #2
On Aug 22, 7:39 pm, Mik0b0 <new...@gmail.comwrote:
Hallo to everyone.
This fall I am going to start data structures as a part of C language
course. The problem is I could not find any satisfying tutorial about
structures in C. There are plenty of books about data structures in C+
+ etc., could anyone please recommend me such a C -specific book ?
I would recommend "Algorithms in C" by Robert Sedgewick. Part 1-4
cover Fundamentals, Data Structures, Sort, and Searching
respectively. Part 5 is a separate volume and focuses on Graphs, the
two volumes are available separately or as a bundle. The text is
fairly comprehensive and very well written and the dialog should be
easy to follow for an undergraduate student. The code is all well-
written C90 and is clear and concise, the author does a good job of
taking advantage of common C idioms and practices that you can use in
the real world.

Robert Gamble

Aug 23 '07 #3
Mik0b0 <ne****@gmail.comwrites:
>Hallo to everyone.
This fall I am going to start data structures as a part of C language
course. The problem is I could not find any satisfying tutorial about
structures in C. There are plenty of books about data structures in C+
+ etc., could anyone please recommend me such a C -specific book ? And
another question: are data structures (like stack, structure etc.)
used in C++ identical to those in C and is it possible to use C++
books to learn about the structures in C?
I'm currently reading through:

http://www.course.com/catalog/produc...-0-534-39080-8

Data Structures: A Pseudocode Approach with C, Second Edition

Richard Gilberg, Behrouz Forouzan
ISBN 13: 978-0-534-39080-8 (C) 2005
ISBN 10: 0-534-39080-3
Publish date: October 11, 2004
672 pages
Hardcover

No opinions just yet....

__________________________________________________ ____________________________
Dr Chris McDonald E: ch***@csse.uwa.edu.au
Computer Science & Software Engineering W: http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~chris
The University of Western Australia, M002 T: +618 6488 2533
Crawley, Western Australia, 6009 F: +618 6488 1089
Aug 23 '07 #4

"Mik0b0" <ne****@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@j4g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
Hallo to everyone.
This fall I am going to start data structures as a part of C language
course. The problem is I could not find any satisfying tutorial about
structures in C. There are plenty of books about data structures in C+
+ etc., could anyone please recommend me such a C -specific book ? And
another question: are data structures (like stack, structure etc.)
used in C++ identical to those in C and is it possible to use C++
books to learn about the structures in C?
Data Structures and Program Analysis in C - Robert Kruse,Clovis Tondo.
This could be the ideal book for you.

Aug 23 '07 #5
On Aug 23, 1:06 am, user923005 <dcor...@connx.comwrote:
On Aug 22, 4:39 pm, Mik0b0 <new...@gmail.comwrote:Hallo to everyone.
This fall I am going to start data structures as a part of C language
course. The problem is I could not find any satisfying tutorial about
structures in C. There are plenty of books about data structures in C+
+ etc., could anyone please recommend me such a C -specific book ?

"Data Structures and Algorithm Analysis in C (Second Edition)"
by Mark Allen Weiss
ISBN: 0-201-49840-5
Is this C ? I'm asking because I just checked the reviews
on amazon.com and several say that the examples are in C++.
They were probably commenting on the wrong book but I want
to make sure.

Aug 23 '07 #6
Spiros Bousbouras said:
On Aug 23, 1:06 am, user923005 <dcor...@connx.comwrote:
<snip>
>"Data Structures and Algorithm Analysis in C (Second Edition)"
by Mark Allen Weiss
ISBN: 0-201-49840-5

Is this C ?
Yes.
I'm asking because I just checked the reviews
on amazon.com and several say that the examples are in C++.
See http://www.cs.fiu.edu/~weiss/dsaa_c2e/files.html
They were probably commenting on the wrong book but I want
to make sure.
Please bear in mind that typical Amazon reviewers can't even spell C,
let alone recognise C source code.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Aug 23 '07 #7
On 22 ago, 20:39, Mik0b0 <new...@gmail.comwrote:
Hallo to everyone.
This fall I am going to start data structures as a part of C language
course. The problem is I could not find any satisfying tutorial about
structures in C. There are plenty of books about data structures in C+
+ etc., could anyone please recommend me such a C -specific book ? And
another question: are data structures (like stack, structure etc.)
used in C++ identical to those in C and is it possible to use C++
books to learn about the structures in C?
I have a book...
i'm going to send to your email.

Aug 23 '07 #8
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
Spiros Bousbouras said:
>On Aug 23, 1:06 am, user923005 <dcor...@connx.comwrote:

<snip>
>>"Data Structures and Algorithm Analysis in C (Second Edition)"
by Mark Allen Weiss
ISBN: 0-201-49840-5

Is this C ?

Yes.
>I'm asking because I just checked the reviews
on amazon.com and several say that the examples are in C++.

See http://www.cs.fiu.edu/~weiss/dsaa_c2e/files.html
>They were probably commenting on the wrong book but I want
to make sure.

Please bear in mind that typical Amazon reviewers can't even spell C,
let alone recognise C source code.
Clearly not the case and I have found many peer reviews on Amazon for
technical books to be very illuminating, What do you do when you are not
putting other people down and blowing up your own self importance?
Aug 23 '07 #9
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:52:01 -0000, Romulo Carneiro
<ro***********@gmail.comwrote:
>On 22 ago, 20:39, Mik0b0 <new...@gmail.comwrote:
>Hallo to everyone.
This fall I am going to start data structures as a part of C language
course. The problem is I could not find any satisfying tutorial about
structures in C. There are plenty of books about data structures in C+
+ etc., could anyone please recommend me such a C -specific book ? And
another question: are data structures (like stack, structure etc.)
used in C++ identical to those in C and is it possible to use C++
books to learn about the structures in C?

I have a book...
i'm going to send to your email.
I suspect that the OP is about to become the recipient of an illegal
copy of something. Or a virus.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
Aug 23 '07 #10
In article <24************@homelinux.net>, Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
....
>Clearly not the case and I have found many peer reviews on Amazon for
technical books to be very illuminating, What do you do when you are not
putting other people down and blowing up your own self importance?
There isn't any time left in the day. 12 hours every day of smashing
newbies and 12 hours every day of blowing up his own self importance
doesn't leave any *time* for anything else.

Aug 23 '07 #11

"osmium" <r1********@comcast.netwrote in message
news:5j*************@mid.individual.net...
But I am opposed to the general notion of language oriented books anyway,
they use the language du jour. Algorithms are permanent, languages are
transient.
If you use a very conservative subset of C then you solve most of the
problems, but not all of them, because standards committees sometimes break
perfectly good constructs.
The snag with pseudocode is that it is much harder to get out bugs.

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

Aug 23 '07 #12
user923005 <dc*****@connx.comwrites:
[...]
Probably, the best book to learn algorithms and data structures is the
CLR book.
I don't know what "CLR" means, though a Google search leads me to
guess that you mean "common language runtime". Can you be more
specific?

[...]
Every programmer on earth should own his own set of TAOCP.
That's The Art of Computer Programming, by Knuth (some people here
might not recognize the abbreviation).

--
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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Aug 23 '07 #13
>user923005 <dc*****@connx.comwrites:
>[...]
>>Probably, the best book to learn algorithms and data structures is the
CLR book.
In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>I don't know what "CLR" means, though a Google search leads me to
guess that you mean "common language runtime". Can you be more
specific?
I believe he means Cormen, Lieserson, and Rivest -- i.e., "Introduction
to Algorithms" (see <http://mitpress.mit.edu/algorithms/>). Technically
this would now be CLRS. :-)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (4039.22'N, 11150.29'W) +1 801 277 2603
email: forget about it http://web.torek.net/torek/index.html
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.
Aug 23 '07 #14
Malcolm McLean wrote, On 23/08/07 20:29:
>
"osmium" <r1********@comcast.netwrote in message
news:5j*************@mid.individual.net...
> But I am opposed to the general notion of language oriented books
anyway, they use the language du jour. Algorithms are permanent,
languages are transient.
If you use a very conservative subset of C then you solve most of the
problems, but not all of them, because standards committees sometimes
break perfectly good constructs.
It does not have to be very conservative since the committee generally
tries to avoid breaking too much existing code. Avoid things most people
would consider bad practice, and the mostly leaves the risk of new
keywords being added.
The snag with pseudocode is that it is much harder to get out bugs.
Implement the pseudocode and debug the implementation being sure to feed
bug fixes back up.
--
Flash Gordon
Aug 23 '07 #15
[comp.lang.c] Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
user923005 <dc*****@connx.comwrites:
>Probably, the best book to learn algorithms and data structures is the
CLR book.
I don't know what "CLR" means, though a Google search leads me to
guess that you mean "common language runtime". Can you be more
specific?
Well, my first thought in response to "CLR" is that rust remover
stuff, which might actually be a good analogy for a book that I
thoroughly loathed as an undergrad. (I'm presuming that CLR refers to
the following text by Cormen, Leiserson, Rivest, and Stein:

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...d=8570&ttype=2

, with apologies for the lack of url snippage.)

--
C. Benson Manica | I appreciate all corrections, polite or otherwise.
cbmanica(at)gmail.com |
----------------------| I do not currently read any posts posted through
sdf.lonestar.org | Google groups, due to rampant unchecked spam.
Aug 23 '07 #16
Richard wrote:
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
>Spiros Bousbouras said:
>>On Aug 23, 1:06 am, user923005 <dcor...@connx.comwrote:

<snip>
>>>"Data Structures and Algorithm Analysis in C (Second Edition)"
by Mark Allen Weiss
ISBN: 0-201-49840-5

Is this C ?

Yes.
>>I'm asking because I just checked the reviews
on amazon.com and several say that the examples are in C++.

See http://www.cs.fiu.edu/~weiss/dsaa_c2e/files.html
>>They were probably commenting on the wrong book but I want
to make sure.

Please bear in mind that typical Amazon reviewers can't even spell C,
let alone recognise C source code.

Clearly not the case and I have found many peer reviews on Amazon for
technical books to be very illuminating, What do you do when you are not
putting other people down and blowing up your own self importance?
But as the post by Kevin Bagust in this thread seems to show, the reviews
*were* wrong for at least this particular book. Not encouraging that a site
like amazon.com could make such an elementary error. Or maybe it's all
about marketing...

Aug 23 '07 #17
On Aug 23, 1:19 pm, Chris Torek <nos...@torek.netwrote:
user923005 <dcor...@connx.comwrites:
[...]
>Probably, the best book to learn algorithms and data structures is the
CLR book.

In article <lnabsidns5....@nuthaus.mib.org>
Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.orgwrote:
I don't know what "CLR" means, though a Google search leads me to
guess that you mean "common language runtime". Can you be more
specific?

I believe he means Cormen, Lieserson, and Rivest -- i.e., "Introduction
to Algorithms" (see <http://mitpress.mit.edu/algorithms/>). Technically
this would now be CLRS. :-)
Yes. I have Introduction to Algorithms, Second Edition by Thomas H.
Cormen, Charles E. Leiserson, Ronald L. Rivest and Clifford Stein at
my desk at all times.

Aug 23 '07 #18
Keith Thompson wrote:
user923005 <dc*****@connx.comwrites:
[...]
>Probably, the best book to learn algorithms and data structures is the
CLR book.

I don't know what "CLR" means, though a Google search leads me to
guess that you mean "common language runtime". Can you be more
specific?

[...]
>Every programmer on earth should own his own set of TAOCP.

That's The Art of Computer Programming, by Knuth (some people here
might not recognize the abbreviation).
Those who don't can always ggl it.

--
Eric Sosman
es*****@ieee-dot-org.invalid
Aug 24 '07 #19
santosh said:
Richard wrote:
>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
<snip>
>>Please bear in mind that typical Amazon reviewers can't even spell
C, let alone recognise C source code.

Clearly not the case and I have found many peer reviews on Amazon for
technical books to be very illuminating, What do you do when you are
not putting other people down and blowing up your own self
importance?

But as the post by Kevin Bagust in this thread seems to show, the
reviews *were* wrong for at least this particular book. Not
encouraging that a site like amazon.com could make such an elementary
error. Or maybe it's all about marketing...
Please don't feed the trolls, santosh. It only encourages them.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Aug 24 '07 #20
On Aug 23, 6:12 pm, Eric Sosman <esos...@ieee-dot-org.invalidwrote:
Keith Thompson wrote:
user923005 <dcor...@connx.comwrites:
[...]
Probably, the best book to learn algorithms and data structures is the
CLR book.
I don't know what "CLR" means, though a Google search leads me to
guess that you mean "common language runtime". Can you be more
specific?
[...]
Every programmer on earth should own his own set of TAOCP.
That's The Art of Computer Programming, by Knuth (some people here
might not recognize the abbreviation).

Those who don't can always ggl it.
if u cn rd ths msg u cn bcm a sec & gt a gd jb.

Aug 24 '07 #21
[comp.lang.c] Eric Sosman <es*****@ieee-dot-org.invalidwrote:
Those who don't can always ggl it.
Is that "giggle"? (That wouldn't be a bad name for a search engine
either, but alas, the domain has been appropriated by a purveyor of
infant paraphernalia.)

--
C. Benson Manica | I appreciate all corrections, polite or otherwise.
cbmanica(at)gmail.com |
----------------------| I do not currently read any posts posted through
sdf.lonestar.org | Google groups, due to rampant unchecked spam.
Aug 24 '07 #22

"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote in message
news:6s************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...
Malcolm McLean wrote, On 23/08/07 20:29:
>>
"osmium" <r1********@comcast.netwrote in message
news:5j*************@mid.individual.net...
>> But I am opposed to the general notion of language oriented books
anyway, they use the language du jour. Algorithms are permanent,
languages are transient.
If you use a very conservative subset of C then you solve most of the
problems, but not all of them, because standards committees sometimes
break perfectly good constructs.

It does not have to be very conservative since the committee generally
tries to avoid breaking too much existing code. Avoid things most people
would consider bad practice, and the mostly leaves the risk of new
keywords being added.
But they can't make their decrees stick. In the end this can only lead to
the abandonment of the standard. My Microsoft compiler already deprecates
the string library.

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

Aug 24 '07 #23
Malcolm McLean wrote, On 24/08/07 22:15:
>
"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote in message
news:6s************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...
>Malcolm McLean wrote, On 23/08/07 20:29:
>>>
"osmium" <r1********@comcast.netwrote in message
news:5j*************@mid.individual.net...
But I am opposed to the general notion of language oriented books
anyway, they use the language du jour. Algorithms are permanent,
languages are transient.
If you use a very conservative subset of C then you solve most of the
problems, but not all of them, because standards committees sometimes
break perfectly good constructs.

It does not have to be very conservative since the committee generally
tries to avoid breaking too much existing code. Avoid things most
people would consider bad practice, and the mostly leaves the risk of
new keywords being added.
But they can't make their decrees stick. In the end this can only lead
to the abandonment of the standard. My Microsoft compiler already
deprecates the string library.
Make up your mind whether you are arguing that the standards committee
will break the code or whether implementations will break it.

The current version of MSVC still compiles C programs conforming to C90,
and if prodded appropriately will not generate those warnings. I think
that MS would find themselves forced to back off if they ever actually
removed the standard functions they generate those warnings for, just as
a few years back they were forced to add in proper backwards
compatibility for a version of Word that lacked it.
--
Flash Gordon
Aug 24 '07 #24
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
[comp.lang.c] Eric Sosman <es*****@ieee-dot-org.invalidwrote:
> Those who don't can always ggl it.

Is that "giggle"? (That wouldn't be a bad name for a search engine
either, but alas, the domain has been appropriated by a purveyor of
infant paraphernalia.)
<off-topic>

When Google first appeared on the scene, I supposed that
the founders were aficionados of 1920's popular entertainment:
"Barney Google and Snuffy Smith," "Barney Google with the goo-
goo- googly eyes," and so on.

It came as a disappointment when I read somewhere that the
name originated as a misspelling of "googol."

But maybe that's just a cover story to prevent us from
realizing we're being taken over by Cossacks. Isn't one of
the founders named Sergei? Maybe his family hails from
Sorochyntsi.

</off-topic>

--
Eric Sosman
es*****@ieee-dot-org.invalid
Aug 25 '07 #25
Malcolm McLean said:

<snip>
But [ISO] can't make their decrees stick. In the end this can
only lead to the abandonment of the standard. My Microsoft
compiler already deprecates the string library.
Then ditch your Microsoft compiler. There are plenty of other high
quality compilers available for your platform, some of them free. For
parochialism to triumph, it is necessary only for cross-platform
developers to do nothing.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Aug 25 '07 #26
Keith Thompson wrote:
user923005 <dc*****@connx.comwrites:
[...]
>Probably, the best book to learn algorithms and data structures
is the CLR book.

I don't know what "CLR" means, though a Google search leads me to
guess that you mean "common language runtime". Can you be more
specific?
Well, barring other evidence, I would assume it refers to a
pushbutton or routine that initializes something to an 'empty'
condition, such as blanking a screen. :-)

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Aug 25 '07 #27

"Ben Bacarisse" <be********@bsb.me.ukwrote in message
news:87************@bsb.me.uk...
I probably have little credit in your bank, but if there is any left,
draw on it now and consider this question: does the world need yet
another X toolkit? I think not.
That's a good question. The idea of Baby X is that it is simple to use, at
the cost of not having much flexibility, and is also simple in code.
Initially it seemed to go very well, you can have scrollbars, buttons, edit
fields etc, all perfectly serviceable, in a few lines. Unfortunately adding
containers broke the premise that "each object is a window" of its own type,
whilst fonts and colours make things more complicated, and introduce
dependencies of the objects on each other. As I add functionality, it
becomes progressively more and more difficult to descibe how to write your
own BabyX component. Eventually it might end up as just another toolkit, so
the question becomes why not just use GTX?
>
What would be hugely useful is a simple C API to a common abstraction
(a simple subset, presumably) of the basic GUI functionality with
small back ends that implement this natively in Gtk, Qt, Win32 and
anything else anyone fancies. I don't know if this is really
possible, but if it is it would benefit everyone doing cross-platform
development of GUI C programs.
It is easy to define an interface. All you need is openwindow(width,
height), closewindow(), setpixel(x, y, colour), arguably getpixel(x, y),
querymouse(win, &x, &y), and squeaksqueak( void (*fptr)(int buttons, void
*ptr)), defiining a callback for mouse input, and kbhit() / getch() for the
keyboard.

In practise it is difficult to get this to work on all systems, because they
evilly take control of the main loop. That was another motive for writing
Baby X. Then you've got the problem of colour depth, not so severe now but a
real nuisance in the past. Finally you really need some hook into the
systems fonts. You can get output without it, but non-game users like to see
Ariel and Times New Roman.

Another problem again no longer as severe as it was, is that on some systems
there isn't enough memory to hold backing store for every window. So windows
need to be regenrated on demand.

The of course you can't write a non-trival GUI with just those functions,
you need sub-windows and other facilities on top. However you can implement
everythign in terms of simple pixel operations. Java's Swing does just
that - the previous approach, providing interfaces to native graphics calls,
failed.

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

Aug 25 '07 #28
"Malcolm McLean" <re*******@btinternet.comwrote:
"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote in message
Malcolm McLean wrote, On 23/08/07 20:29:
>
It does not have to be very conservative since the committee generally
tries to avoid breaking too much existing code. Avoid things most people
would consider bad practice, and the mostly leaves the risk of new
keywords being added.
But they can't make their decrees stick. In the end this can only lead to
the abandonment of the standard. My Microsoft compiler already deprecates
the string library.
Yes, but that's a politico-economical weapon, intended to lock you
deeper and deeper into M$'s broken "safe" extensions, not a rational
decision. It really has nothing to do with what the committee should and
should not do, except perhaps as an argument that the committee should
not give in to those bullies and should have nothing more to do with
that extension.

Richard
Aug 27 '07 #29

"Richard Bos" <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwrote in message
news:46****************@news.xs4all.nl...
"Malcolm McLean" <re*******@btinternet.comwrote:
>"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote in message
Malcolm McLean wrote, On 23/08/07 20:29:

It does not have to be very conservative since the committee generally
tries to avoid breaking too much existing code. Avoid things most
people
would consider bad practice, and the mostly leaves the risk of new
keywords being added.
But they can't make their decrees stick. In the end this can only lead to
the abandonment of the standard. My Microsoft compiler already
deprecates the string library.

Yes, but that's a politico-economical weapon, intended to lock you
deeper and deeper into M$'s broken "safe" extensions, not a rational
decision. It really has nothing to do with what the committee should and
should not do, except perhaps as an argument that the committee should
not give in to those bullies and should have nothing more to do with
that extension.
Or rather it is a rational decision, if you happen to have Microsoft shares,
but not from a software engineering perspective.
You are right, we need to fight back, to protect our language.

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

Aug 27 '07 #30

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

3 posts views Thread by Michael | last post: by
4 posts views Thread by Thomas Paul Diffenbach | last post: by
13 posts views Thread by James Harris | last post: by
10 posts views Thread by Bart Goeman | last post: by
11 posts views Thread by manochavishal | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by osp | last post: by
41 posts views Thread by istillshine | last post: by
reply views Thread by NPC403 | last post: by
reply views Thread by zattat | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.