| № | Пользователь | Рейтинг |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3792 |
| 2 | VivaciousAubergine | 3647 |
| 3 | Kevin114514 | 3603 |
| 4 | jiangly | 3583 |
| 5 | turmax | 3559 |
| 6 | tourist | 3541 |
| 7 | strapple | 3515 |
| 8 | ksun48 | 3461 |
| 9 | dXqwq | 3436 |
| 10 | Otomachi_Una | 3413 |
| Страны | Города | Организации | Всё → |
| № | Пользователь | Вклад |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 157 |
| 2 | adamant | 153 |
| 3 | Um_nik | 146 |
| 3 | Proof_by_QED | 146 |
| 5 | Dominater069 | 145 |
| 6 | errorgorn | 141 |
| 7 | cry | 139 |
| 8 | YuukiS | 135 |
| 9 | TheScrasse | 134 |
| 10 | chromate00 | 133 |
I think u have issues with stack size.
"u have" Is that mean that is my machine problem ? does it work for you ?
Yep, everything works fine on my PC, you should either allocate bigger stack or avoid recursion. (I believe it is not that hard in that task, simply use std::stack or array instead of recursion)
You can also iterate backwards through the dp states before answering. If your dp recurrence goes "forward" ( dp(x) depends on dp values greater than x) fill the values from MAXN to 0. Doing that the program will never reach a recursion depth greater than 1. It is a cheap and fast way to fix this kind of issue.