Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:45:09 -1000 From: juli mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> To: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/games/random random.c Message-ID: <20050623004509.GA55856@toxic.magnesium.net> In-Reply-To: <20050623004143.GG37620@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: <200506221524.j5MFO1V1045648@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050623002734.GE37620@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20050623003148.GA55179@toxic.magnesium.net> <20050623004143.GG37620@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> [ Date: 2005-06-22 ] [ w.r.t. Re: cvs commit: src/games/random random.c ] > On Wednesday, 22 June 2005 at 14:31:48 -1000, juli mallett wrote: > > * Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> [ Date: 2005-06-22 ] > > [ w.r.t. Re: cvs commit: src/games/random random.c ] > >> On Wednesday, 22 June 2005 at 15:24:00 +0000, John Baldwin wrote: > >>> jhb 2005-06-22 15:24:00 UTC > >>> Log: > >>> Correct an error in the previous revision. RAND_MAX is the maximum value > >>> for rand(3), not random(3). random(3) is defined to return values between > >>> 0 and 2^31-1, so add a local RANDOM_MAX constant to this file that is > >>> defined as 2^31-1 and use that in place of RAND_MAX. > >> > >> How much effect did this bug have on the results of random(3)? > > > > How would a bug in random(6) bounds checking affect the results > > of random(3)? > > You tell me. The commit message only refers to random(3). The commit was to random(6) and the commit message was in reference to the use of random(3) by random(6). I suspect one of us is very confused and/or not reading the emails we reply to. > Greg > -- > The virus contained in this message was not detected. > > Finger grog@FreeBSD.org for PGP public key. > See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050623004509.GA55856>