Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 19:43:44 +0100 From: phk@freebsd.org To: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org>, Doug Barton <DougB@freebsd.org>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rand() is broken Message-ID: <31532.1044211424@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 02 Feb 2003 21:38:26 %2B0300." <20030202183826.GA66487@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20030202183826.GA66487@nagual.pp.ru>, "Andrey A. Chernov" writes: >On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 19:32:50 +0100, phk@freebsd.org wrote: >> >> Anyway, last time we discussed this, I think we stuck with the rand() >> we had because we feared that people were using it's repeatable well >> documented sequence of random numbers in regression testing. > >As documented, it must be repeatable across the calls for same seed, that >is all. It not means repeatable accross platforms or across different OS >versions. In fact it is already not repeatable across different OS'es, so >regression is limited. Also, regression must not stop bugs fixing progress >in anycase. Our manual pages do not comprehensively list all compatibility concerns or concessions, waving our manpage about does not address the concern. As I said, I don't know how big a concern this is. But last time it was enough of a concern to make us keep rand() as it was. Please surf the mail-archives to find the discussion, it contained a lot of good arguments from both sides, arguments which should be thought about before changing rand(). -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. 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?31532.1044211424>