From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Feb  2 13:18:18 2003
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81DAA37B401
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun,  2 Feb 2003 13:18:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from a.smtp.serv.lythe.org.uk (pc4-oxfd1-6-cust225.oxfd.cable.ntl.com [62.254.141.225])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76D0243F43
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun,  2 Feb 2003 13:18:16 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from ejb@insolence.lythe.org.uk)
Received: from insolence.lythe.org.uk (ejb@localhost [IPv6:::1])
	by a.smtp.serv.lythe.org.uk (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h12LHn1a071486;
	Sun, 2 Feb 2003 21:17:49 GMT
	(envelope-from ejb@insolence.lythe.org.uk)
Received: by insolence.lythe.org.uk (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h12LHnqG071480;
	Sun, 2 Feb 2003 21:17:49 GMT
	(envelope-from ejb)
From: Edward Brocklesby <ejb@lythe.org.uk>
To: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>
Subject: Re: rand() is broken
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 21:17:49 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG
References: <200302022039.PAA13951@warspite.cnchost.com>
In-Reply-To: <200302022039.PAA13951@warspite.cnchost.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200302022117.49248.ejb@lythe.org.uk>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-current.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-current>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-current>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Sunday 02 February 2003 8:39 pm, Bakul Shah wrote:
> What I am suggesting is to leave random() as it is and
> guarantee its behavior won't change and add cryto_random() or
> whatever, and indicate it *may* change.

Where was it indicated that random() wouldn't change?

> Note that it is rand() that is broken, not random() as can be
> seen by modifying Kris Kennaways' test so I don't see why
> Mark Murray was talking about changing it in the first place.

rand()/random() -- either way, the same thing applies, it just happens you use 
random() rather than rand().  (I see no problem to changing either;  do you 
object to this rand() change on the same basis?)

Regards,
Edward.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message