## Search found 9 matches

Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:29 pm
Forum: Volume 109 (10900-10999)
Topic: 10927 - Bright Lights
Replies: 26
Views: 14187
Just for giggles, I just replaced all FP routines in a copy of my program with equivalent integer calculations.

The program was still accepted. It runs slightly slower, but not significantly so (about 10ms difference). The runtime is obviously dominated by all the sorting going on.
Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:39 pm
Forum: Volume 109 (10900-10999)
Topic: 10927 - Bright Lights
Replies: 26
Views: 14187
I got AC on first try with a solution that does use floating point arithmetics (for polar coordinates). I didn't even use < EPSILON for equality checks, but ==. I was aware of the possibility of doing it integer-only, but I thought, let's try floats first, it's easier to code and I can still rewrite...
Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:03 pm
Forum: Volume 4 (400-499)
Topic: 453 - Intersecting Circles
Replies: 84
Views: 15778
Sorry, I have no idea. I ran your code against every testcase I have, including some quite difficult ones, and it passed.
Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:27 am
Forum: Volume 4 (400-499)
Topic: 453 - Intersecting Circles
Replies: 84
Views: 15778
My accepted solution produces this output for the testcases; I assume the following is identical to the original 453.sol: (3.000,-5.000) (0.000,8.800) (3.200,-0.800) (-14.900,2.900) (-12.600,7.200) (1.000,1.000) (-1.097,-2.380)(1.388,0.000) NO INTERSECTION (0.260,0.449)(0.415,-0.176) (0.262,1.351)(1...
Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:23 am
Forum: Volume 4 (400-499)
Topic: 453 - Intersecting Circles
Replies: 84
Views: 15778
I have solved the problem by now. The only remaining problem with my program had been that in the case that the circles are equal and have radius zero, the judge does not want to hear "THE CIRCLES ARE THE SAME", but the single intersection point instead. (This does follow from the problem descriptio...
Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:13 pm
Forum: Volume 4 (400-499)
Topic: 453 - Intersecting Circles
Replies: 84
Views: 15778
Apparantly, Adrian deleted those files since.

Anyone still have a copy?
Tue Nov 29, 2005 9:17 pm
Forum: Volume 101 (10100-10199)
Topic: 10189 - Minesweeper
Replies: 418
Views: 71523
Just checked the gcc manpage. According to that, gcc is unable to warn about the use of uninitialized variables if not compiling with (at least) -O1. Guess I'll have to add that to my standard compilation parameters to avoid this kind of embarrassment in the future.
Tue Nov 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Forum: Volume 101 (10100-10199)
Topic: 10189 - Minesweeper
Replies: 418
Views: 71523
Accepted.

Please excuse me while I go beat my head against the wall a few times. Hard.

I've been debugging this thing for ages, including two rewrites.

My local compiler just quietly initializes the variable to zero. It doesn't even warn, even though I'm using -Wall.
Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:40 pm
Forum: Volume 101 (10100-10199)
Topic: 10189 - Minesweeper
Replies: 418
Views: 71523

### 10189 (Minesweeper): WA

The code works on lots of test cases, including any "special" case I could think of. I believe also made the input parsing as robust as I possibly could. So...why does this code get WA? I compared it to code posted here that people said to be accepted, and I don't think I'm doing anything differentl...