Algorithm | Awesome algorithm refactor from 'Algorithm 4th Edition | Learning library

Within the function you need to find each element in the passed array. However the type of the array is unknown. You only know the size of each element of the array and the starting address of the array that is passed through the parameter base0. of the type const void *..

To access an element of the array you need to use the pointer arithmetic. But the type void is incomplete type. Its size is unknown/ So you may not use the pointer of the type (const) void *` in expressions with the pointer arithmetic.

Thus this declaration

I'm trying to parallelize a merge-sort algorithm. What I'm doing is dividing the input array for each thread, then merging the threads results.

Ok, but yours is an unnecessarily difficult approach. At each step of the merge process, you want half of your threads to wait for the other half to finish, and the most natural way for one thread to wait for another to finish is to use pthread_join(). If you wanted all of your threads to continue with more work after synchronizing then that would be different, but in this case, those that are not responsible for any more merges have nothing at all left to do.

This is what I've tried:

set_intersection does not allocate memory: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/set_intersection

You need a vector with some space. Change vector v; to vector v(n+m);

https://ideone.com/NvoZBu

Multiple things could cause this behaviour, because the pipeline runs fine with less Data, analysing what has changed could lead us to a resolution.

The third line of the logs you provide might indicate that you're processing unclean data in your bigger pipeline mmap(NULL, could mean that | "Get Content" >> beam.Map(lambda x: x.read_utf8()) is trying to read a null value.

Is there an empty file somewhere ? Are your files utf8 encoded ?

I'm guessing using the fileio.ReadMatches() will try to load into memory the whole file, if your file is bigger than your memory, this could lead to errors. Can you split your data into smaller files ?

If files are too big for your current machine with a DirectRunner you could try to use an on-demand infrastructure using another runner on the Cloud such as DataflowRunner

You can use itertools.groupby to group adjacent identical values, then only keep values that have group length of 1.

Try this

The problem probably lies in how you pass the control parameter list to the Griffiths2004 function.

In the Griffiths2004 function, the parameters are addressed as in a list using control$param. However, lda_5@control returns an S4 object where the parameters should be addressed with control@param. (An S4 object is an advanced class in R, but the only important difference for this application is, that we address objects in these lists with @ instead of $)

You can see that lda@control is an S4 object when calling it:

• the first one is correct
• so as you said valuation instructions are how many time we are assigning values with the operator then I can see almost 10 assign variables(considering that initializing of i and j as well as i++ (i=i+1) and j++)
• for the third question as you are using an array of size n your space complexity is O(n)
• for the 4th question, as you are using two nestedfor loops and you are iterating like n+(n-1)+(n-2)+... = n*(n+1)/2 = (n^2+n)/2 = O(n^2) (Time complexity)

Ok, the signature container is embedded correctly.

But there are issues with the signature container itself:

• Both in the SignedData.digestAlgorithms collection and in the SignerInfo.digestAlgorithm value you have used the OID of SHA1withRSA, but that is a full signature algorithm, not the mere digest algorithm SHA1 expected there.

• Then the SHA1 hash of the signed bytes is BB78A402F7A537A34D6892B83881266501A691A8 but the hash you signed is 90E28B8A0D8E48691DAFE2BA10A4761FFFDCCD3D. This might be because you hash buffer2 and

  buffer2 has empty contents data (/Contents <>)

  The hex string delimiters '<' and '>' also belong to the contents value and, therefore, must also be removed in buffer2.

Furthermore, your signature is very weak:

• It uses SHA1 as hash algorithm. SHA1 meanwhile has been recognized as too weak a hash algorithm for document signatures.
• It doesn't use signed attributes, neither the ESS signing certificate nor the algorithm identifier protection attribute. Many validation policies require such special attributes.