> Good point. We can re-implement random() internally with arc4rand().
> Objections?

Guys, please realize that random() is also used in generating
simulation inputs (or timing or whatever).  If you go change
the underlying algorithm or its parameters one can't generate
the same sequence from the same seed when repeating a test.
Some chip bug symptoms show up after hours/days of simulation
time and only with specific inputs so repeatablity is a

The old 16 bit rand() was broken enough that it didn't matter
much (read: _I_ don't care) if its behavior got changed but
random() has a pretty long cycle and enough "randomness" to
be very useful and it *is* used.

*Please* don't change random() -- if you do that you will
break existing tests.  It is not a matter of just rewriting
tests since there is no easy way to predict  which input
triggers a certain bug -- one can try to use the same
binaries but that prevents fixing of bugs in the test
generation code itself.

If you think random() is not random enough for your purposes,
go create a new function with a *new* name.

[I see from his latest email that PHK remembered the old

-- bakul

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to