From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Oct  7 14:00:48 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA28260
          for current-outgoing; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 14:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from citrine.cyberstation.net (hannibal@citrine.cyberstation.net [205.167.0.5])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA28250;
          Mon, 7 Oct 1996 14:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (hannibal@localhost) by citrine.cyberstation.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA11204; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 15:58:33 -0500
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 15:58:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dan Walters <hannibal@cyberstation.net>
To: =?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= <ache@nagual.ru>
cc: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de,
        freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org, bde@zeta.org.au
Subject: Re: I plan to change random() for -current (was Re: rand() and random())
In-Reply-To: <199610071926.XAA04826@nagual.ru>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.95.961007155017.10420C-100000@citrine.cyberstation.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

I havn't played with weak symbols any, so this may not be possible.  But
couldn't we just make srandom() in libc weak, and make a librandom or
something to that effect to override it?  That way all programs that don't
require the compatibility only need an extra link flag for a better
distribution.  Just a thought.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Dan Walters
hannibal@cyberstation.net
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, [KOI8-R] =E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA =FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7 wrote:

> > Unless you are a mathematical programmer, you are unlikely to be
> > able to aprehend the consequences of even a trivial change away from
> > mathematical standards will have.  There are verifiable standards
> > of correctness, and each standard dictates issues of precision to
> > which one can trust the code.  Obviously, differences after the
> > significant digits can be ignored for comparison -- and are, in fact,
> > stripped from results as the "noise" that they are.
>=20
> FYI, I am applied mathematic, B.S. degree.
>=20
> > I suggest strict adherence to standards -- mathematical standards,
> > not ANSI or ISO C standards -- with regard to maintaining precision
> > and historical implementation, as required to ensure repeatability
> > and trust.
>=20
> Current random() code is joke from mathematical point of view (but not fr=
om
> ANSI/ISO standards). It is why it needs fixing.
>=20
> --=20
> Andrey A. Chernov
> <ache@nagual.ru>
> http://www.nagual.ru/~ache/
>=20