On 06/18/12 10:40, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: > On 17/06/12 19:50, Artur Skawina wrote: >> I took your random.d and ran with that: >> >> [6612, 6650, 6704, 0, 6629, 6834, 6634, 6756, 6590, 6591] >> [6589, 6587, 6636, 0, 6673, 6704, 6647, 6704, 6643, 6817] >> [6744, 6552, 6602, 0, 6641, 6722, 6598, 6676, 6749, 6716] >> [6641, 6583, 6710, 0, 6618, 6684, 6789, 6673, 6683, 6619] >> [6667, 6692, 6600, 0, 6717, 6588, 6660, 6678, 6673, 6725] >> >> so the problem is still there, just a little different. >> >> I'm using an old GDC build, in case that makes any difference: >> >> gcc version 4.6.3 20120106 (prerelease gdc 0.31 - r748:ab99d67f04c2, using >> dmd 2.057) > > Just built my random.d with gdc 4.6.3 together with your test code. Here's > what comes out: > > [5954, 5896, 6018, 6004, 5978, 5963, 5959, 5970, 6151, 6107] > [6020, 6044, 5914, 5994, 6110, 6064, 5969, 5985, 6002, 5898] > [5877, 6021, 6022, 6054, 6075, 5967, 5998, 6010, 6023, 5953] > [6059, 5968, 5972, 5908, 5982, 6034, 6189, 5909, 5982, 5997] > [6006, 6077, 6011, 6037, 5823, 6062, 6022, 5925, 6065, 5972] > [5877, 6006, 6005, 6049, 6013, 5971, 6053, 6023, 5902, 6101] > [5946, 5984, 6006, 6018, 6049, 6097, 5993, 6030, 5922, 5955] > [5992, 6071, 5974, 5993, 6066, 5974, 5897, 6017, 5951, 6065] > [5975, 6127, 6103, 5889, 6000, 5949, 6003, 5849, 5974, 6131] > [6005, 5937, 5920, 5978, 6032, 6003, 6023, 6064, 6086, 5952] > > ... are you sure there's not something wrong in the way you added my random.d > to your test code? I've sent a copy of my code to you privately so you can > test.
Your standalone version works fine. For some reason the test fails as shown above when I replace the std.random module with your version (same as the working test program minus the runtime test), compile it and link my test with the resulting random.o object. artur
