Re: Bug in rand() and srand()

Article View: net.bugs

Article #413

#413

From: Alexis Dimitriadis
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1985 02:34

10 lines
1136 bytes

> A better way around the problem is to use the more
> sophisticated random number generator random() all of its bits are supposed
> to be random and its really not that much slower than rand().  A simple
> #define rand random can fix your code.

  Our version of 4.2 random() ALWAYS returns an even number the first time it
is called after being seeded. That effectively breaks small applications
that call random only once.  (Or those that seed it for every call).

  	alexis

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1067@reed.UUCP>

Path:

arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!sfmag!eagle!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!tektronix!reed!alexis

References: <320@cubsvax.UUCP> <433@lll-crg.ARPA>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site reed.UUCP
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!sfmag!eagle!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!tektronix!reed!alexis
From: alexis@reed.UUCP (Alexis Dimitriadis)
Newsgroups: net.bugs,net.unix,net.lang.c,net.math
Subject: Re: Bug in rand() and srand()
Message-ID: <1067@reed.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Mar-85 21:34:03 EST
Article-I.D.: reed.1067
Posted: Fri Mar  8 21:34:03 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Mar-85 04:12:29 EST
References: <320@cubsvax.UUCP> <433@lll-crg.ARPA>
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon
Lines: 10

Reply to Parent Message