On Tue, 31 May 2016, Chris Torek wrote:
That was what I was complaining about. div.c is for C90 (misspelled
"ANSI").
It wasn't misspelled when I wrote it. :-) The 1989 ANSI C
:-)
standard was formally ratified in Dec 1989, and the draft was
pretty firm by the time I wrote the code
>That was what I was complaining about. div.c is for C90 (misspelled
>"ANSI").
It wasn't misspelled when I wrote it. :-) The 1989 ANSI C
standard was formally ratified in Dec 1989, and the draft was
pretty firm by the time I wrote the code (which I am sure was also
1989, despite the 1990
On 31.05.2016 17:17, Bruce Evans wrote:
> Our rand should use just 1, and it is dangerous to change RAND_MAX again,
> but can we even change the sequences? Something might depend on
> reproducing the old sequences.
This question already arises many times. The sequence must be
reproducible during
On Tue, 31 May 2016, Andrey Chernov wrote:
On 31.05.2016 12:58, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016, Andrey Chernov wrote:
...
You can download SPRNG library implementing all of them here:
http://www.sprng.org/RNG/
For me it is overcomplicated.
The general case is certainly too
This implementation of shifts 32-bit and 64-bit PRNGs looks more
reliable than Mersenne primes and don't use Bignums:
http://wwwmaths.anu.edu.au/~brent/ftp/random/xorgens305.tar.gz
PDF article inside.
On 31.05.2016 14:30, Andrey Chernov wrote:
> On 31.05.2016 12:58, Bruce Evans wrote:
>> On Tue,
On 31.05.2016 12:58, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2016, Andrey Chernov wrote:
>
>> On 31.05.2016 9:48, Bruce Evans wrote:
Perhaps you can find some ideas, answers and PRNG comparison in the
original paper:
http://www.firstpr.com.au/dsp/rand31/p1192-park.pdf
>>>
>>> The ones
On Tue, 31 May 2016, Andrey Chernov wrote:
On 31.05.2016 9:48, Bruce Evans wrote:
Perhaps you can find some ideas, answers and PRNG comparison in the
original paper:
http://www.firstpr.com.au/dsp/rand31/p1192-park.pdf
The ones with Mersenne primes and tweaked Mersenne primes in the reference
On 31.05.2016 9:48, Bruce Evans wrote:
>> Perhaps you can find some ideas, answers and PRNG comparison in the
>> original paper:
>> http://www.firstpr.com.au/dsp/rand31/p1192-park.pdf
>
> The ones with Mersenne primes and tweaked Mersenne primes in the reference
> (lanl?) given by pfg@ seem OK.
On Mon, 30 May 2016, Andrey Chernov wrote:
On 30.05.2016 5:17, Bruce Evans wrote:
...
Even 1980's compiler technology was not far from reducing the division
to a multiplication. The LCG expression would then reduce to
(uintN_t)(A * x + B) where N is either 32 or 64. Perhaps N needs to
be 64
(Interesting discussion)
On 05/29/16 21:17, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
Log:
1) Unifdef USE_WEAK_SEEDING since it is too obsolete to support and
makes
reading hard.
Good.
2) Instead of doing range transformation in each and every function
here,
do
On 30.05.2016 5:17, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2016, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
>
>> Log:
>> 1) Unifdef USE_WEAK_SEEDING since it is too obsolete to support and
>> makes
>> reading hard.
>
> Good.
>
>> 2) Instead of doing range transformation in each and every function
>> here,
>> do
On Sun, 29 May 2016, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
Log:
1) Unifdef USE_WEAK_SEEDING since it is too obsolete to support and makes
reading hard.
Good.
2) Instead of doing range transformation in each and every function here,
do it single time directly in do_rand(). One "mod" operation
Author: ache
Date: Sun May 29 13:57:06 2016
New Revision: 300956
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/300956
Log:
1) Unifdef USE_WEAK_SEEDING since it is too obsolete to support and makes
reading hard.
2) Instead of doing range transformation in each and every function here,
13 matches
Mail list logo
