On Fri, Oct 08 2021, René Scharfe wrote:
> Am 08.10.21 um 09:23 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:
>> Also generally: If you'd like "portable" rand() for a test just shell
>> out to perl. I ran this on various Perl versions (oldest 5.12) on Debian
>> Linux, OSX, Solaris & OpenBSD, all returned the same number for both:
>>
>> ruby -e 'srand(1); puts rand'; perl -E 'srand(1); say $^V; say rand'
>>
>> Whereas a C program doing the same:
>>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>>
>> int main(void)
>> {
>> srand(1);
>> printf("rand = %d\n", rand());
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> Returns different numbers an all, and on OpenBSD the number is different
>> each time, per their well-known non-standard srand()/rand() behavior.
>
> For test shell code that needs only a few random numbers this would
> be fine.
>
> For test-genrandom it would also work, but I don't see any benefit in
> converting it to a scripting language.
>
> Shelling out to a script to avoid a multiplication and a modulo in
> test-mergesort is not interesting, to put it mildly. A mode that sorts
> input from stdin like the sort subcommand, but returns the operation
> counts, might be useful if you want to test distributions generated by
> a Perl script or other data source of your choice.
Yes, it has zero applicablility here.
It was just an aside/FYI since we were on the topic of the
cross-platformness of rand().
I.e. one might assume that for the general problem of seeding something
randomly cross-platform one had to ship a rand(), but usually at least
perl is there ahead of you, and since it has its own rand()...
