Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 15:58:33 -0500 (CDT) From: Dan Walters <hannibal@cyberstation.net> To: =?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= <ache@nagual.ru> Cc: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org, bde@zeta.org.au Subject: Re: I plan to change random() for -current (was Re: rand() and random()) Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.95.961007155017.10420C-100000@citrine.cyberstation.net> In-Reply-To: <199610071926.XAA04826@nagual.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I havn't played with weak symbols any, so this may not be possible. But couldn't we just make srandom() in libc weak, and make a librandom or something to that effect to override it? That way all programs that don't require the compatibility only need an extra link flag for a better distribution. Just a thought. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Dan Walters hannibal@cyberstation.net =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, [KOI8-R] =E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA =FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7 wrote: > > Unless you are a mathematical programmer, you are unlikely to be > > able to aprehend the consequences of even a trivial change away from > > mathematical standards will have. There are verifiable standards > > of correctness, and each standard dictates issues of precision to > > which one can trust the code. Obviously, differences after the > > significant digits can be ignored for comparison -- and are, in fact, > > stripped from results as the "noise" that they are. >=20 > FYI, I am applied mathematic, B.S. degree. >=20 > > I suggest strict adherence to standards -- mathematical standards, > > not ANSI or ISO C standards -- with regard to maintaining precision > > and historical implementation, as required to ensure repeatability > > and trust. >=20 > Current random() code is joke from mathematical point of view (but not fr= om > ANSI/ISO standards). It is why it needs fixing. >=20 > --=20 > Andrey A. Chernov > <ache@nagual.ru> > http://www.nagual.ru/~ache/ >=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.95.961007155017.10420C-100000>