[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev Lynx 2.8.4 with OpenSSL
From: |
Duncan Simpson |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev Lynx 2.8.4 with OpenSSL |
Date: |
Sat, 03 Feb 2001 20:02:21 +0000 |
On my linux libc rand manpage says:
<lots snipped>
NOTES
The versions of rand() and srand() in the Linux C Library
use the same random number generator as random() and sran
dom(), so the lower-order bits should be as random as the
higher-order bits. However, on older rand() implementa
tions, the lower-order bits are much less random than the
higher-order bits.
In Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing
(William H. Press, Brian P. Flannery, Saul A. Teukolsky,
William T. Vetterling; New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1990 (1st ed, p. 207)), the following comments are
made:
"If you want to generate a random integer between 1
and 10, you should always do it by
j=1+(int) (10.0*rand()/(RAND_MAX+1.0));
and never by anything resembling
j=1+((int) (1000000.0*rand()) % 10);
(which uses lower-order bits)."
Random-number generation is a complex topic. The Numeri
cal Recipes in C book (see reference above) provides an
excellent discussion of practical random-number generation
issues in Chapter 7 (Random Numbers).
<all tbe rest snipped>
So, IMHO you should prefer random() over rand().
--
Duncan (-:
"software industry, the: unique industry where selling substandard goods is
legal and you can charge extra for fixing the problems."
; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to address@hidden
- lynx-dev Lynx 2.8.4 with OpenSSL, Patrick Ash , 2001/02/03
- Re: lynx-dev Lynx 2.8.4 with OpenSSL, Ilya Zakharevich, 2001/02/03
- Re: lynx-dev Lynx 2.8.4 with OpenSSL, Patrick Ash , 2001/02/08
- Re: lynx-dev Lynx 2.8.4 with OpenSSL, Thomas E. Dickey, 2001/02/08
- Re: lynx-dev Lynx 2.8.4 with OpenSSL, pg, 2001/02/08
- Re: lynx-dev Lynx 2.8.4 with OpenSSL, Thomas E. Dickey, 2001/02/08
- lynx-dev rejection of lynx by website, Leslie Fairall, 2001/02/08
- Re: lynx-dev rejection of lynx by website, Thomas Dickey, 2001/02/08
- Re: lynx-dev rejection of lynx by website, Leslie Fairall, 2001/02/08
- Re: lynx-dev rejection of lynx by website, Thomas Dickey, 2001/02/08
- Re: lynx-dev rejection of lynx by website, David Woolley, 2001/02/08