Andrey A. Chernov writes:
If I understand correctly, this still doesn't solve the problem,
because any PRNG sequence that hits the magic value will still get
stuck there forever.
It was true for the first patch I post which just move problem to another=
place (this is commonly spreaded
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 10:55:42 +, Mark Murray wrote:
How do you _know_ that your newly chosen magic number isn't going to cause
some kind of recurring (and too-short) sequence of numbers?
I run simple test for it, it is not too short.
--
Andrey A. Chernov
http://ache.pp.ru/
To
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 14:08:41 +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 10:55:42 +, Mark Murray wrote:
How do you _know_ that your newly chosen magic number isn't going to cause
some kind of recurring (and too-short) sequence of numbers?
I run simple test for it, it
Andrey A. Chernov writes:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 10:55:42 +, Mark Murray wrote:
How do you _know_ that your newly chosen magic number isn't going to cause
some kind of recurring (and too-short) sequence of numbers?
I run simple test for it, it is not too short.
simple test?
How
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 11:19:17 +, Mark Murray wrote:
simple test?
How long did you check for?
See my another message with details.
random() is documented to not repeat before some number of outputs;
how do you know that this fix does not significantly shorten that?
random(3) is
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 14:26:00 +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
random(3) is not affected to to its hashing nature. We talk about rand(3).
to to = due to
--
Andrey A. Chernov
http://ache.pp.ru/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of
So far, this is final variant for 0 problem fixing ready for committing.
Any objections?
--- stdlib/rand.c.old Sat Jan 4 20:39:19 2003
+++ stdlib/rand.c Sun Feb 2 17:34:34 2003
@@ -72,10 +72,13 @@
*/
long hi, lo, x;
+ /* Can't be initialized with 0, so use another
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 06:10:49PM +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
So far, this is final variant for 0 problem fixing ready for committing.
Any objections?
What tests have you run on this code to ensure it doesn't still have
strange problems?
Kris
msg51583/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
So far, this is final variant for 0 problem fixing ready for committing.
Any objections?
Several people, including myself have asked for A) Enough discussion to
reach a consensus, and B) Thorough testing of the agreed upon solution.
You have allowed
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 13:12:55 -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
If I had to guess, I'd say that you're eager to fix the mistake you made,
and I suppose that's commendable. However, it's been broken for two years,
it can wait another couple days for a more thorough fix.
If you talk about 0
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 13:06:08 -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 06:10:49PM +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
So far, this is final variant for 0 problem fixing ready for committing.
Any objections?
What tests have you run on this code to ensure it doesn't still have
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 12:55:40AM +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 13:06:08 -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 06:10:49PM +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
So far, this is final variant for 0 problem fixing ready for committing.
Any objections?
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 14:21:02 -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
If I understand correctly, this still doesn't solve the problem,
because any PRNG sequence that hits the magic value will still get
stuck there forever.
It was true for the first patch I post which just move problem to another
13 matches
Mail list logo
