| № | Пользователь | Рейтинг |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | tourist | 4009 |
| 2 | jiangly | 3823 |
| 3 | Benq | 3738 |
| 4 | Radewoosh | 3633 |
| 5 | jqdai0815 | 3620 |
| 6 | orzdevinwang | 3529 |
| 7 | ecnerwala | 3446 |
| 8 | Um_nik | 3396 |
| 9 | ksun48 | 3390 |
| 10 | gamegame | 3386 |
| Страны | Города | Организации | Всё → |
| № | Пользователь | Вклад |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | cry | 165 |
| 2 | maomao90 | 163 |
| 2 | Um_nik | 163 |
| 4 | atcoder_official | 161 |
| 5 | adamant | 160 |
| 6 | -is-this-fft- | 158 |
| 7 | awoo | 157 |
| 8 | TheScrasse | 154 |
| 9 | nor | 153 |
| 9 | Dominater069 | 153 |
Hi I am facing an issue in the problem 2036F - XORificator 3000 where I was getting WA when I am using long long But when I looked at the editorial the only major diff was using uint64_t instead and I got accepted
Can anyone explain why this is happening given below are the 2 codes
I guess uint64_t(that is, "u"int64_t) is actually unsigned long long instead of the signed one?
It is even failing for such small cases like "2 28 3 7"
I think I am missing something some property or something I have analysed it using debugs but not able to find where it is going wrong
Negative division is defined weirdly in C++, -1 / 2 = 0 and not -1