On 10 Jul 1998, d. hall wrote:
>A random number generator shouldn't be easy to read nor understand.
International Obfuscated C Contest Entrant?
>It so be esoteric, voodoo source, for the simple reason that unless you've
>got a serious math background, and wish to play intensively with
>Stochastic methods, and have no idea what monto carlo is, you've got no
>business playing with a random number's algorithm.
for (kk=0;kk<N-M;kk++) {
y = (mt[kk]&UPPER_MASK)|(mt[kk+1]&LOWER_MASK);
mt[kk] = mt[kk+M] ^ (y >> 1) ^ mag01[y & 0x1];
}
I'm quite happy with the simple allocater we currently have instead of that
jumbled mess, no matter how much faster it is supposed to be.
>The reason for the original random inclusion was to offset a bad random
>function often found within native libraries.
Yes, and the problem has been solved with circle_random.
>You should be less worried about a random number's pure speed within 1
>million iterations over the fact that it truly as pseudo-random as
>possible. A purist in algorithms can respect that.
If you're that purist, just read from /dev/random and forget your own
allocator. That's cryptologically secure and fast in randomness, at least
in Linux. There's a huge comment in linux/drivers/char/random.c that is
good reading.
--
George Greer, greerga@circlemud.org | Genius may have its limitations, but
http://patches.van.ml.org/ | stupidity is not thus handicapped.
http://www.van.ml.org/CircleMUD/ | -- Elbert Hubbard
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST