Is this code to detect cycle in an undirected graph correct. I have run it on a few test cases and it seems good . Can someone from the community verify it.
code:
code
# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | tourist | 3985 |
2 | jiangly | 3814 |
3 | jqdai0815 | 3682 |
4 | Benq | 3529 |
5 | orzdevinwang | 3526 |
6 | ksun48 | 3517 |
7 | Radewoosh | 3410 |
8 | hos.lyric | 3399 |
9 | ecnerwala | 3392 |
9 | Um_nik | 3392 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | cry | 169 |
2 | maomao90 | 162 |
2 | Um_nik | 162 |
4 | atcoder_official | 161 |
5 | djm03178 | 158 |
6 | -is-this-fft- | 157 |
7 | adamant | 155 |
8 | awoo | 154 |
8 | Dominater069 | 154 |
10 | luogu_official | 150 |
Is this code to detect cycle in an undirected graph correct. I have run it on a few test cases and it seems good . Can someone from the community verify it.
code:
// p is parent
// s is source
// adj is adjacency list representation of graph
// path is to store cycle and is a set
// ch is children/neighbor of s;
bool dfs(ll s,ll p)
{
visited[s]=true; for(auto ch:adj[s]) { if(ch!=p&&visited[ch]) { path.insert(ch); return true; } if(!visited[ch]) { if(dfs(ch,s)) { path.insert(ch); return true; } } } return false;
}
Name |
---|
why down-voting
Because your question is not precise. It's not a good way to ask the community to verify code for you, instead, it may be better to explain your approach in a few sentences or ask for some resources in this topic (of course after searching and not finding anything useful).