Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 09:37:50 +1000 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: ache@nagual.ru, kpneal@pobox.com Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, terry@lambert.org Subject: Re: I plan to change random() for -current (was Re: rand() and random()) Message-ID: <199610072337.JAA12712@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>Current random() code is joke from mathematical point of view (but not from >>ANSI/ISO standards). It is why it needs fixing. > >Wait. I feel like I'm missing something here. > >The pseudo-random calls are documented. They have been for a long time. > >They give repeatable results, cross platform, from the desk machine to the >supercomputer. Nope, they give results that vary across platforms and across time. 16-bit systems can't even represent the values returned by BSD rand(). >And how much hardware isn't supported yet, while this argument about >changing something minor goes on? How many features does, for example, Linux >have, while a debate about pseudo-random numbers go on? Linux has features such as a completely different, non-broken version of rand(). Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610072337.JAA12712>