| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3676 |
| 2 | Kevin114514 | 3659 |
| 3 | jiangly | 3640 |
| 4 | turmax | 3450 |
| 5 | tourist | 3382 |
| 6 | strapple | 3360 |
| 7 | Um_nik | 3354 |
| 8 | squareOf105 | 3348 |
| 9 | maroonrk | 3312 |
| 10 | idontwannadothis…e | 3191 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 156 |
| 2 | nik_exists | 151 |
| 3 | maspy | 149 |
| 4 | AmShZ | 145 |
| 5 | Um_nik | 143 |
| 6 | Errichto | 139 |
| 7 | BledDest | 136 |
| 8 | adamant | 135 |
| 9 | maroonrk | 132 |
| 10 | cry | 130 |
Usually, topological sort is implemented like
void dfs(int x) {
vis[x] = true;
for(int u = 0; u < n; u++) {
if(!vis[u] && graph[x][u] == 1) {
dfs(u);
}
}
order.push_back(x);
}
And then printed in reverse order But if I implement this way
void dfs(int x) {
order.push_back(x);
vis[x] = true;
for(int u = 0; u < n; u++) {
if(!vis[u] && graph[x][u] == 1) {
dfs(u);
}
}
}
And print in same order.
Can someone provide me a test case where 2nd approach will fail
| Name |
|---|


