Tom Lane <tgl@sss.phg.pa.us> writes:
> Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> > The Linux man pages indicate that the behavior and underlying
> > implementation of random() and rand() are the same (so I just picked
> > one).
>
> Ah, well, there's your problem. Whoever did this part of the library
> on Linux took shortcuts. On older-line systems, rand() is a
> considerably older and crummier generator than random(). It would
> definitely not be a wise decision to use rand() instead.
>
> I believe using random() is the right thing. The portability bug here
> is the assumption that RAND_MAX applies to random() (or is even defined;
> none of the man pages I've looked at so far mention it). But all the
> machines say that the output of random() is 31 bits, so INT_MAX should
> work.
On an i386 machine, certainly; but not on an Alpha or a Sparc.
Probably safer to use (2**31)-1, which is what my (NetBSD) man page
says.
FWIW, I believe random(3) running on NetBSD/alpha, for example, will
return a 31-bit result.
Chris
--
---------------------------------------------------- cjones@rightnowtech.com
Chris Jones
System Administrator, RightNow Technologies
"Is this going to be a stand-up programming session, sir, or another bug hunt?"
