From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Oct 5 11:49:17 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA01959 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 11:49:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grumble.grondar.za (root@grumble.grondar.za [196.7.18.130]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA01953; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 11:49:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grumble.grondar.za (mark@localhost.grondar.za [127.0.0.1]) by grumble.grondar.za (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA23755; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 20:47:51 +0200 (SAT) Message-Id: <199610051847.UAA23755@grumble.grondar.za> To: =?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= (Andrey A. Chernov) cc: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans), joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: I plan to change random() for -current (was Re: rand() and random()) Date: Sat, 05 Oct 1996 20:47:50 +0200 From: Mark Murray Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk =?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= wrote: > > >IMHO we need to change our random() as suggested. > > > > How do you know that the suggested method is better? > > Well, I am not research random generators area personally, > but given formulae is 1) well-known as good one, 2) give > good results with proposed test, 3) already used in libkern/random.c, > 4) better than previous one in all parameters. Why don't you use the RNG engine from /dev/random in random_machdep.c? There is even a routine in ther (#ifdef'ed out) for this use. That thing gives _great_ random numbers, and it is already in the kernel. M -- Mark Murray 46 Harvey Rd, Claremont, Cape Town 7700, South Africa +27 21 61-3768 GMT+0200 Finger mark@grondar.za for PGP key