On 08/29/2013 09:52 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >>> >>> #define RAND_MAX 0x7ffffffd >> >> Huh? Why is this not 2**n-1? That violates assumptions we have made, >> and is WHY your compile failed. It has nothing to do with clang vs. gcc >> (both compilers would fail), it has to do with your changed system >> header resulting in violating assumptions that hold in ALL OTHER >> IMPLEMENTATIONS, that random numbers are evenly distributed within a >> range of a power of 2. >> > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-head/2013-July/049076.html > > makes it look like the reduction in range was _intentional_? Yuck. A > non-power-of-2 random generator adds needless complexity to the user. > > > I also intend to open a bug against POSIX to request that RAND_MAX be > required to be 2**n-1, rather than relying on the assumption that > everyone so far, until FreeBSD 10, has happened to meet that requirement. http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=743 -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list