Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 15:08:51 +0300 (MSK) From: =?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= (aka Andrey A. Chernov, Black Mage) <ache@astral.msk.su> To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: davidg@Root.COM, current@FreeBSD.org, imb@scgt.oz.au Subject: Re: random .. not so .. Message-ID: <199603301208.PAA00473@astral.msk.su> In-Reply-To: <199603300629.RAA30811@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at "Mar 30, 96 05:29:37 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> >I plan to aply proposed fix, if nobody against. > > It needs more thought. What thought exactly do you mean? > rand() is well known to be poor and is left that way for historical bug > for bug compatibility. srandom() uses the same formula as rand() so it I think, nothing wrong happens if even rand() will be better. All rand() using programs I see still expects 'random generator' from it and not 'well-known historycal buggy formula'. > may be poor. This seems to be the main point of the fix. The example > program seems to be mostly bogus. Calling srandom() a lot defeats the > randomness of random(). For a sillier example, change the constants in Calling srandom(time() f.e.) is common case. Without this fix two programs calling srandom in _different_ times produces very predictable almost same sequences. -- Andrey A. Chernov : And I rest so composedly, /Now, in my bed, ache@astral.msk.su : That any beholder /Might fancy me dead - http://dt.demos.su/~ache : Might start at beholding me, /Thinking me dead. RELCOM Team,FreeBSD Team : E.A.Poe From "For Annie" 1849
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603301208.PAA00473>