Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 26 Feb 2001 23:15:15 -0800
From:      Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG>
To:        Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Cc:        "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: rand(3) (was Re: cvs commit: ports/astro/xglobe/files patch-random)
Message-ID:  <20010226231515.B94159@citusc17.usc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <200102270622.XAA13867@usr05.primenet.com>; from tlambert@primenet.com on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 06:22:42AM %2B0000
References:  <20010226202701.A13175@hub.freebsd.org> <200102270622.XAA13867@usr05.primenet.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--b5gNqxB1S1yM7hjW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 06:22:42AM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > Can someone put forth a use for rand() which requires this change
> > > to permit the use to employe rand() instead of its own code?
> >=20
> > Parse error.
>=20
> What won't work without the change?
>=20
> What is the technical reason the change is necessary?

See the commit which is still in the subject line of this message.

There are really only two possibilities for addressing this:

1) Change rand() to work better

and/or

2) Make rand() yell louder when people use it

Some people are opposed to both solutions (mainly you for 1).
Frankly, I think your objections are the weaker of the two sets, since
the number of people who would be affected by changing rand() is small
(simulations which need to be replicable across platforms -- dangerous
anyway -- or across time) and this set is easily taken care of by
those people using a private copy of the 1-line function which is
currently called rand().

I'm sure we could even make a libweakrand port for those people to
relink against.

Okay, now I'm annoyed.  I just looked at glibc, and it already does
what is being discussed here, namely aliasing rand() to random()
(which appears to be the same algorithm we use for random()).  There
goes your "pseudo-standardization" argument out the window, which
means you obviously hadn't checked your facts and were just describing
the state of your internal fantasy universe.  Thanks for wasting
everyone's time with this silly thread.

Kris

--b5gNqxB1S1yM7hjW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE6m1QCWry0BWjoQKURAnC9AKDtsT62g4BastcBGCOem7LBelXRpgCeL1LM
ZNU8+bKpn5UwcnZw/gZj13g=
=QOo4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--b5gNqxB1S1yM7hjW--

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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010226231515.B94159>