Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:39:55 +1100 From: Tim Robbins <tjr@FreeBSD.ORG> To: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/stdlib rand.c Message-ID: <20030217173955.A29826@dilbert.robbins.dropbear.id.au> In-Reply-To: <20030217055309.GA28024@nagual.pp.ru>; from ache@nagual.pp.ru on Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 08:53:09AM %2B0300 References: <200302170352.h1H3qawJ062671@repoman.freebsd.org> <20030217045729.GA68471@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20030217164048.A28273@dilbert.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <20030217055309.GA28024@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 08:53:09AM +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 16:40:48 +1100, Tim Robbins wrote:
>
> > I don't think rand()
> > needs a warning message like gets() &c. because it's not as dangerous.
>
> Wait, what kind of warning __warn_references() produce? I was under
> impression that it is compile-time only.
I was referring to the __warn_references() warning in gets(), not the
annoying message written to standard error.
>
> > What I suggest instead is to remove the pathetic "insults" in rand(3)
> > ("bad" random number generator, obsoleted) and add a BUGS section
> > which describes the problem.
>
> I agree. It can be done not instead only but in addition to compile
> time warning.
>
> > I'd much prefer that rand() generated higher quality numbers, though.
>
> Current formulae generates acceptable quality numbers. Unlike in old
> variant (which generates bad quality ones), the only problem remains is
> first value monotonically increased with the seed.
Here's an interesting picture of that: http://people.freebsd.org/~tjr/rand.gif
Tim
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030217173955.A29826>