Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > cal wrote: > >> In considering a rand() -> random() -> random_r() transition, is the >> random_r() >> family considered "cool for school"? Or are they simply not worth the bother >> given the srandom_r() segfault (easily resolved) and a "non-standard glibc >> extensions" tag. > > You didn't say what you're using the random numbers for. Even crappy old > rand() > would possibly be ok for some applications and completely useless for others.
A little too embarrassed to admit what I was really up to - I'm just exploring a little side track of interest with Yoshimi (ZynAddSubFX derivative). One of the motivating factors was Zyn attempting to use a different seed (and sequence?) in association with each note's elaboration, then reseed->resume the general purpose randoms. I don't question the original authors intention there, and I'm admittedly fuzzy on just what he's doing. I got to wondering if random_r might enable two independent seed/sequences, eliminating the hold->re-seed->use new sequence->restore old seed/sequence on every note. I've now got random_r in there and I'm comfortable with it, but at this stage I've no clear indication I've achieved anything valuable or even better :-). cheers, Cal _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
