From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Oct 8 12:40:44 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA19195 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 12:40:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from paris.CS.Berkeley.EDU (paris.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.34.47]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA19189 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 12:40:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from paris.CS.Berkeley.EDU (localhost.Berkeley.EDU [127.0.0.1]) by paris.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA20041; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 12:39:21 -0700 From: Josh MacDonald Message-Id: <199610081939.MAA20041@paris.CS.Berkeley.EDU> To: Terry Lambert cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: I plan to change random() for -current (was Re: rand() and random()) In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 08 Oct 1996 11:45:34 PDT." <199610081845.LAA16678@phaeton.artisoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <20034.844803559.1@paris.CS.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 12:39:20 -0700 Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > But I'm also tired of Terry blowing things WAY out of proportion. > > > > > > Nobody has even thought about tinkering with rand48. > > > > > > Nobody needing serious random numbers uses rand(). > > > > So now that we've all agreed that serious users of random numbers don't > > use the system's rand(), can we all agree that for non-serious users > > who just want a little randomness for playing a game or disolving an > > image could use a better rand() function so that their programs don't > > suck on FreeBSD? > > For instance, they could use the better rand() function rand48 instead. paris-~ % uname -a SunOS paris.CS. 4.1.3 6 sun4c paris-~ % cat test.c int main() { rand48(); } paris-~ % gcc test.c collect2: ld returned 2 exit status ld: Undefined symbol _rand48 paris-~ % FALSE. -josh