Problems with a large block
Hi, I have some problems with the large block at bottom: -sending the message argumentNames gives me an empty array #() -sending the message sourceNode gives me a strange result and not a RBBlockNode, as I would expect Best, Marco [ :h :s :v | | min chroma hdash X red green blue | red := 0. green:= 0. blue := 0. chroma := s * v. hdash := h / 60. X := chroma * (1.0 - ((hdash % 2) - 1.0) abs). (hdash < 1.0) ifTrue: [ red := chroma. green := X ] ifFalse: [ (hdash < 2.0) ifTrue: [ red := X. green := chroma ] ifFalse: [ (hdash < 3.0) ifTrue: [ green := chroma. blue := X ] ifFalse: [ (hdash < 4.0) ifTrue: [ green := X. blue := chroma ] ifFalse: [ (hdash < 5.0) ifTrue: [ red := X. blue := chroma ] ifFalse: [ (hdash <= 6.0) ifTrue: [ red := chroma. blue := X ] ] ] ] ] ]. min := v - chroma. { #red -> ((red + min) * 255). #green -> ((green + min) * 255). #blue -> ((blue + min) * 255) } ] -- Marco Naddeo PhD Student Dipartimento di Informatica Università degli Studi di Torino Corso Svizzera 185, 10149 Torino, Italy
On 07 Oct 2015, at 15:49, Marco Naddeo <naddeo@di.unito.it> wrote:
Hi,
I have some problems with the large block at bottom:
-sending the message argumentNames gives me an empty array #() -sending the message sourceNode gives me a strange result and not a RBBlockNode, as I would expect
This happens already with: [ :h :s :v | | min chroma hdash X red green blue | ] sourceNode I will check⦠it is a bug in the mapping pc -> AST. Marcus
2015-10-07 16:49 GMT+02:00 Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>:
On 07 Oct 2015, at 15:49, Marco Naddeo <naddeo@di.unito.it> wrote:
Hi,
I have some problems with the large block at bottom:
-sending the message argumentNames gives me an empty array #() -sending the message sourceNode gives me a strange result and not a RBBlockNode, as I would expect
This happens already with:
[ :h :s :v | | min chroma hdash X red green blue | ] sourceNode
I will check⦠it is a bug in the mapping pc -> AST.
That's interesting, the way the pc is mapped to the AST (ir instructionForPC: ) takes the "length" of the instruction bytecode into account and the length of a pushclosure includes all bytes needed for the pushing the local temps (pushConstant nil. pushConstant nil ....) But the startPC of a block context starts at the first push, not after, that means self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc - 1 starts the search after the push closure bytecode but before any push local temp byte code. Either we don't include the bytecodes for the "pushConstant:nil" in the bytecode offset, or we start the search at self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc - 1 + self numLocalTemps
Marcus
Hi Nicolai, On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@web.de> wrote:
2015-10-07 16:49 GMT+02:00 Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>:
On 07 Oct 2015, at 15:49, Marco Naddeo <naddeo@di.unito.it> wrote:
Hi,
I have some problems with the large block at bottom:
-sending the message argumentNames gives me an empty array #() -sending the message sourceNode gives me a strange result and not a RBBlockNode, as I would expect
This happens already with:
[ :h :s :v | | min chroma hdash X red green blue | ] sourceNode
I will check⦠it is a bug in the mapping pc -> AST.
That's interesting, the way the pc is mapped to the AST (ir instructionForPC: ) takes the "length" of the instruction bytecode into account and the length of a pushclosure includes all bytes needed for the pushing the local temps (pushConstant nil. pushConstant nil ....)
But the startPC of a block context starts at the first push, not after, that means
self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc - 1 starts the search after the push closure bytecode but before any push local temp byte code.
Either we don't include the bytecodes for the "pushConstant:nil" in the bytecode offset, or we start the search at
self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc - 1 + self numLocalTemps
No, no, no, no, no :-). The PC in question is the pc of the block creation byte code. The startpc of a block is the first bytecode following the block creation byte code. That *includes* any pushConstant: nil byte codes establishing temps in the block. Instead, it is expected that "self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc - 1" answers the same as "self method sourceNodeForPC: self blockCreationPC", where self blockCreationPC is the pc of the block's block creation bytecode. In Squeak we have BlockClosure>>blockCreationPC "Answer the pc for the bytecode that created the receuver." | method | method := self method. ^method encoderClass pcOfBlockCreationBytecodeForBlockStartingAt: startpc in: method This is because we support (as you will soon enough) different byte code sets so it is wrong to assume the size of the block creation bytecode is 4. But for now you could use self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc - 4 and make sure that the compiler maps a block creation bytecode to the source node for the entire block. The way to think about "self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc - 1 + self numLocalTemps" not masking sense is that a pc inside the block must map to a statement inside the block, not the block itself. HTH
Marcus
-- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot
2015-10-08 1:30 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com>:
Hi Nicolai,
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@web.de> wrote:
2015-10-07 16:49 GMT+02:00 Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>:
On 07 Oct 2015, at 15:49, Marco Naddeo <naddeo@di.unito.it> wrote:
Hi,
I have some problems with the large block at bottom:
-sending the message argumentNames gives me an empty array #() -sending the message sourceNode gives me a strange result and not a RBBlockNode, as I would expect
This happens already with:
[ :h :s :v | | min chroma hdash X red green blue | ] sourceNode
I will check⦠it is a bug in the mapping pc -> AST.
That's interesting, the way the pc is mapped to the AST (ir instructionForPC: ) takes the "length" of the instruction bytecode into account and the length of a pushclosure includes all bytes needed for the pushing the local temps (pushConstant nil. pushConstant nil ....)
But the startPC of a block context starts at the first push, not after, that means
self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc - 1 starts the search after the push closure bytecode but before any push local temp byte code.
Either we don't include the bytecodes for the "pushConstant:nil" in the bytecode offset, or we start the search at
self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc - 1 + self numLocalTemps
No, no, no, no, no :-).
I think I will always get confused by BlockClosure code at the bytecode level :)
self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc - 4
We already have this little heuristic instructionForPC: aPC 0 to: -3 by: -1 do: [ :off | (self firstInstructionMatching: [:ir | ir bytecodeOffset = (aPC - off) ]) ifNotNil: [:it |^it]] AFAUI this 0 to -3 offset is used because we have 1,2,3 or 4 byte-length bytecodes.
and make sure that the compiler maps a block creation bytecode to the source node for the entire block.
in the above code (instructionForPC) we try to find the instruction for the pc (here the pc of the closure creation code), but I don't really understand what "bytecodeOffset" is, it looks like (bytecodeIndex+startPC), but for a IRPushClosureCopy, it looks like the bytecodeIndex does include the number of local temps resp. (numberOfLocalTemps times the bytecodelength for pushConstant:nil).
The way to think about "self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc - 1 + self numLocalTemps" not masking sense is that a pc inside the block must map to a statement inside the block, not the block itself.
Hm, I don't know :)
HTH
Marcus
-- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot
Hi Nicolai, On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@web.de> wrote:
2015-10-08 1:30 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com>:
Hi Nicolai,
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@web.de> wrote:
2015-10-07 16:49 GMT+02:00 Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>:
On 07 Oct 2015, at 15:49, Marco Naddeo <naddeo@di.unito.it> wrote:
Hi,
I have some problems with the large block at bottom:
-sending the message argumentNames gives me an empty array #() -sending the message sourceNode gives me a strange result and not a RBBlockNode, as I would expect
This happens already with:
[ :h :s :v | | min chroma hdash X red green blue | ] sourceNode
I will check⦠it is a bug in the mapping pc -> AST.
That's interesting, the way the pc is mapped to the AST (ir instructionForPC: ) takes the "length" of the instruction bytecode into account and the length of a pushclosure includes all bytes needed for the pushing the local temps (pushConstant nil. pushConstant nil ....)
But the startPC of a block context starts at the first push, not after, that means
self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc - 1 starts the search after the push closure bytecode but before any push local temp byte code.
Either we don't include the bytecodes for the "pushConstant:nil" in the bytecode offset, or we start the search at
self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc - 1 + self numLocalTemps
No, no, no, no, no :-).
I think I will always get confused by BlockClosure code at the bytecode level :)
What exactly do you find confusing? The byte codes are simple if you read the right source. Perhaps you could talk with Clément; he's local and understands the byte code set as well as I do. If you can't talk to him you could read the class comment of EncoderForV3PlusClosures in a Squeak 4.6 or 5.0 image, or the class comment of EncoderForSistaV1 in the BytecodeSets package on http://source.squeak.org/VMMaker. If you're confused by the scheme for closing over variables have you read my blog posts on the closure compiler? I wish you hadn't deleted this bit, it is "the truth": "*The PC in question is the pc of the block creation byte code. The startpc of a block is the first bytecode following the block creation byte code. That *includes* any pushConstant: nil byte codes establishing temps in the block. Instead, it is expected that "self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc - 1" answers the same as "self method sourceNodeForPC: self blockCreationPC", where self blockCreationPC is the pc of the block's block creation bytecode.* *In Squeak we have* *BlockClosure>>blockCreationPC* * "Answer the pc for the bytecode that created the receuver."* * | method |* * method := self method.* * ^method encoderClass* * pcOfBlockCreationBytecodeForBlockStartingAt: startpc* * in: method* *This is because we support (as you will soon enough) different byte code sets so it is wrong to assume the size of the block creation bytecode is 4.* "
self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc - 4
We already have this little heuristic
instructionForPC: aPC 0 to: -3 by: -1 do: [ :off | (self firstInstructionMatching: [:ir | ir bytecodeOffset = (aPC - off) ]) ifNotNil: [:it |^it]]
AFAUI this 0 to -3 offset is used because we have 1,2,3 or 4 byte-length bytecodes.
Well this will break down with the Sista byte code set because one could conceivably have 7 or 8 byte bytecoedes when one includes prefixes. In the Newspeak and Sista sets we extend the ranges of byte codes by allowing prefixes. Notionally the number of prefixes is unlimited but in practice we're using only one of each of the two prefix bytecodes Prefix A & Prefix B (currently E0 and E1 in all sets). But in the Sista set there is a field in the block creation byte code that reveals how many prefixes the byte code has so one can compute the actual start of the block creation byte code. i.e. EncoderForSistaV1 class>>pcOfBlockCreationBytecodeForBlockStartingAt: startpc in: method "Answer the pc of the push closure bytecode whose block starts at startpc in method. May need to back up to include extension bytecodes." "* 224 11100000 aaaaaaaa Extend A (Ext A = Ext A prev * 256 + Ext A) * 225 11100001 bbbbbbbb Extend B (Ext B = Ext B prev * 256 + Ext B) ** 250 11111010 eeiiikkk jjjjjjjj Push Closure Num Copied iii (+ExtA//16*8) Num Args kkk (+ ExtA\\16*8) BlockSize jjjjjjjj (+ExtB*256). ee = num extensions" | numExtensions | self assert: (method at: startpc - 3) = 250. numExtensions := (method at: startpc - 2) >> 6. ^startpc - 3 - (numExtensions * 2) and make sure that the compiler maps a block creation bytecode to the
source node for the entire block.
in the above code (instructionForPC) we try to find the instruction for the pc (here the pc of the closure creation code), but I don't really understand what "bytecodeOffset" is, it looks like (bytecodeIndex+startPC), but for a IRPushClosureCopy, it looks like the bytecodeIndex does include the number of local temps resp. (numberOfLocalTemps times the bytecodelength for pushConstant:nil).
Marcus, what is bytecodeOffset? Is it the distance from the first byte code or the distance from the first literal or...? The way to think about "self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc - 1 +
self numLocalTemps" not making sense is that a pc inside the block must map to a statement inside the block, not the block itself.
Hm, I don't know :)
Why? I designed the closure byte code set so I'm telling you :-). It's safe to believe me. For example, an initial pushConstant: nil byte code in a block either establishes the first local temp in that block, or is an argument of a send in the block. In either case it refers to an element inside the block, not to the entire block itself. the thing that defines the entire block is the block creation byte code, which includes the span (the size of) the block's bytecodes. I chose to live with this annoying ambiguity because there were very few unused byte codes and I did;t want to use all of them for the closure byte code set. And I chose the closure architecture so I could write a faster VM than one that accessed temps directly in outer scopes (which I go into at length on my blog). HTH
Marcus
-- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot
-- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot
2015-10-08 9:39 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com>:
Hi Nicolai,
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@web.de> wrote:
2015-10-08 1:30 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com>:
Hi Nicolai,
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@web.de> wrote:
2015-10-07 16:49 GMT+02:00 Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>:
On 07 Oct 2015, at 15:49, Marco Naddeo <naddeo@di.unito.it> wrote:
Hi,
I have some problems with the large block at bottom:
-sending the message argumentNames gives me an empty array #() -sending the message sourceNode gives me a strange result and not a RBBlockNode, as I would expect
This happens already with:
[ :h :s :v | | min chroma hdash X red green blue | ] sourceNode
I will check⦠it is a bug in the mapping pc -> AST.
That's interesting, the way the pc is mapped to the AST (ir instructionForPC: ) takes the "length" of the instruction bytecode into account and the length of a pushclosure includes all bytes needed for the pushing the local temps (pushConstant nil. pushConstant nil ....)
But the startPC of a block context starts at the first push, not after, that means
self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc - 1 starts the search after the push closure bytecode but before any push local temp byte code.
Either we don't include the bytecodes for the "pushConstant:nil" in the bytecode offset, or we start the search at
self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc - 1 + self numLocalTemps
No, no, no, no, no :-).
I think I will always get confused by BlockClosure code at the bytecode level :)
What exactly do you find confusing?
For a moment, I was unsure in which context the pushConstant:nil are executed, on construction or when executing the block.
The byte codes are simple if you read the right source. Perhaps you could talk with Clément; he's local and understands the byte code set as well as I do. If you can't talk to him you could read the class comment of EncoderForV3PlusClosures in a Squeak 4.6 or 5.0 image, or the class comment of EncoderForSistaV1 in the BytecodeSets package on http://source.squeak.org/VMMaker.
If you're confused by the scheme for closing over variables have you read my blog posts on the closure compiler?
Yes I read your blog and it is a great source of information, not only about the current state and what is new, but even about the history of the smalltalk vm - this is always good to know.
I wish you hadn't deleted this bit, it is "the truth":
I didn't want to hide "the truth" :) I thought this was the same I wrote and understand, the startPC starts at the first pushConstant:nil for creating space, for the local temp, on the stack.
"*The PC in question is the pc of the block creation byte code. The startpc of a block is the first bytecode following the block creation byte code. That *includes* any pushConstant: nil byte codes establishing temps in the block. Instead, it is expected that "self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc - 1" answers the same as "self method sourceNodeForPC: self blockCreationPC", where self blockCreationPC is the pc of the block's block creation bytecode.*
*In Squeak we have* *BlockClosure>>blockCreationPC* * "Answer the pc for the bytecode that created the receuver."* * | method |* * method := self method.* * ^method encoderClass* * pcOfBlockCreationBytecodeForBlockStartingAt: startpc* * in: method*
*This is because we support (as you will soon enough) different byte code sets so it is wrong to assume the size of the block creation bytecode is 4.* "
self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc - 4
We already have this little heuristic
instructionForPC: aPC 0 to: -3 by: -1 do: [ :off | (self firstInstructionMatching: [:ir | ir bytecodeOffset = (aPC - off) ]) ifNotNil: [:it |^it]]
AFAUI this 0 to -3 offset is used because we have 1,2,3 or 4 byte-length bytecodes.
Well this will break down with the Sista byte code
I did not write that code, I just try to understand what I see.
set because one could conceivably have 7 or 8 byte bytecoedes when one includes prefixes. In the Newspeak and Sista sets we extend the ranges of byte codes by allowing prefixes. Notionally the number of prefixes is unlimited but in practice we're using only one of each of the two prefix bytecodes Prefix A & Prefix B (currently E0 and E1 in all sets).
But in the Sista set there is a field in the block creation byte code that reveals how many prefixes the byte code has so one can compute the actual start of the block creation byte code. i.e.
EncoderForSistaV1 class>>pcOfBlockCreationBytecodeForBlockStartingAt: startpc in: method "Answer the pc of the push closure bytecode whose block starts at startpc in method. May need to back up to include extension bytecodes."
"* 224 11100000 aaaaaaaa Extend A (Ext A = Ext A prev * 256 + Ext A) * 225 11100001 bbbbbbbb Extend B (Ext B = Ext B prev * 256 + Ext B) ** 250 11111010 eeiiikkk jjjjjjjj Push Closure Num Copied iii (+ExtA//16*8) Num Args kkk (+ ExtA\\16*8) BlockSize jjjjjjjj (+ExtB*256). ee = num extensions" | numExtensions | self assert: (method at: startpc - 3) = 250. numExtensions := (method at: startpc - 2) >> 6. ^startpc - 3 - (numExtensions * 2)
and make sure that the compiler maps a block creation bytecode to the
source node for the entire block.
in the above code (instructionForPC) we try to find the instruction for the pc (here the pc of the closure creation code), but I don't really understand what "bytecodeOffset" is, it looks like (bytecodeIndex+startPC), but for a IRPushClosureCopy, it looks like the bytecodeIndex does include the number of local temps resp. (numberOfLocalTemps times the bytecodelength for pushConstant:nil).
Marcus, what is bytecodeOffset? Is it the distance from the first byte code or the distance from the first literal or...?
The way to think about "self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc - 1 +
self numLocalTemps" not making sense is that a pc inside the block must map to a statement inside the block, not the block itself.
Hm, I don't know :)
Why? I designed the closure byte code set so I'm telling you :-). It's safe to believe me.
I do believe, I just don't understand.
For example, an initial pushConstant: nil byte code in a block either establishes the first local temp in that block, or is an argument of a send in the block. In either case it refers to an element inside the block, not to the entire block itself. the thing that defines the entire block is the block creation byte code, which includes the span (the size of) the block's bytecodes. I chose to live with this annoying ambiguity because there were very few unused byte codes and I did;t want to use all of them for the closure byte code set. And I chose the closure architecture so I could write a faster VM than one that accessed temps directly in outer scopes (which I go into at length on my blog).
I read it, but I don't understand how can calling self method sourceNodeForPC: self startpc -1 depend on the pc inside the block? Isn't this only to get the sourceNode of the block object?
HTH
Marcus
-- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot
-- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot
Hi Marco, Had some fun with the code you posted :D. This *should* be the equivalent, but with less variables so that you can access the RBBlockNode. [ :h :s :v | | chroma rgb | chroma := s*v. rgb := { 0 . 0 . 0 }. rgb at: ((((h + 60) // 120) \\ 3) + 1) put: chroma; at: ((((h // 60) + 2 \\ 3) * 5 \\ 3) + 1) put: (chroma * (1.0 - (((h/60) \\ 2) - 1.0) abs)); collect: [ :part | (part + (v - (chroma) )) * 255 ] ] sourceNode . Best Regards, Henrik -----Original Message----- From: Pharo-dev [mailto:pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of Marco Naddeo Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:49 PM To: Pharo-dev <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Subject: [Pharo-dev] Problems with a large block Hi, I have some problems with the large block at bottom: -sending the message argumentNames gives me an empty array #() -sending the message sourceNode gives me a strange result and not a RBBlockNode, as I would expect Best, Marco [ :h :s :v | | min chroma hdash X red green blue | red := 0. green:= 0. blue := 0. chroma := s * v. hdash := h / 60. X := chroma * (1.0 - ((hdash % 2) - 1.0) abs). (hdash < 1.0) ifTrue: [ red := chroma. green := X ] ifFalse: [ (hdash < 2.0) ifTrue: [ red := X. green := chroma ] ifFalse: [ (hdash < 3.0) ifTrue: [ green := chroma. blue := X ] ifFalse: [ (hdash < 4.0) ifTrue: [ green := X. blue := chroma ] ifFalse: [ (hdash < 5.0) ifTrue: [ red := X. blue := chroma ] ifFalse: [ (hdash <= 6.0) ifTrue: [ red := chroma. blue := X ] ] ] ] ] ]. min := v - chroma. { #red -> ((red + min) * 255). #green -> ((green + min) * 255). #blue -> ((blue + min) * 255) } ] -- Marco Naddeo PhD Student Dipartimento di Informatica Università degli Studi di Torino Corso Svizzera 185, 10149 Torino, Italy
Hi Henrik, thank you but my problem is not that particular block, but rather the fact that I need to navigate the AST of *any* block (no matter which one and how much is big) to retrieve the last statement in it... Anyhow, for the moment I can use your refactoring to make my tests succeed. ;-) So thanks. Marco Il 07/10/2015 18:05, Henrik Nergaard ha scritto:
Hi Marco,
Had some fun with the code you posted :D. This *should* be the equivalent, but with less variables so that you can access the RBBlockNode.
[ :h :s :v | | chroma rgb | chroma := s*v. rgb := { 0 . 0 . 0 }. rgb at: ((((h + 60) // 120) \\ 3) + 1) put: chroma; at: ((((h // 60) + 2 \\ 3) * 5 \\ 3) + 1) put: (chroma * (1.0 - (((h/60) \\ 2) - 1.0) abs)); collect: [ :part | (part + (v - (chroma) )) * 255 ] ] sourceNode .
Best Regards, Henrik
-----Original Message----- From: Pharo-dev [mailto:pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of Marco Naddeo Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:49 PM To: Pharo-dev <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Subject: [Pharo-dev] Problems with a large block
Hi,
I have some problems with the large block at bottom:
-sending the message argumentNames gives me an empty array #() -sending the message sourceNode gives me a strange result and not a RBBlockNode, as I would expect
Best, Marco
[ :h :s :v | | min chroma hdash X red green blue | red := 0. green:= 0. blue := 0. chroma := s * v. hdash := h / 60. X := chroma * (1.0 - ((hdash % 2) - 1.0) abs). (hdash < 1.0) ifTrue: [ red := chroma. green := X ] ifFalse: [ (hdash < 2.0) ifTrue: [ red := X. green := chroma ] ifFalse: [ (hdash < 3.0) ifTrue: [ green := chroma. blue := X ] ifFalse: [ (hdash < 4.0) ifTrue: [ green := X. blue := chroma ] ifFalse: [ (hdash < 5.0) ifTrue: [ red := X. blue := chroma ] ifFalse: [ (hdash <= 6.0) ifTrue: [ red := chroma. blue := X ] ] ] ] ] ]. min := v - chroma. { #red -> ((red + min) * 255). #green -> ((green + min) * 255). #blue -> ((blue + min) * 255) } ]
-- Marco Naddeo
PhD Student Dipartimento di Informatica Università degli Studi di Torino Corso Svizzera 185, 10149 Torino, Italy
-- Marco Naddeo PhD Student Dipartimento di Informatica Università degli Studi di Torino Corso Svizzera 185, 10149 Torino, Italy
participants (5)
-
Eliot Miranda -
Henrik Nergaard -
Marco Naddeo -
Marcus Denker -
Nicolai Hess