search for: random_number_generator

...already using srand()/rand() then > there is no reason to assume somehow the benchmark is worse if it > always used the FreeBSD one, say, as opposed to a platform specific > one. +1 There are a couple of example implementations here which are only a few lines long: http://wiki.osdev.org/Random_Number_Generator -Hal > > - Daniel > > > > > > > > I think that, in this particular case, having bugs in GCC is far less > problematic than assuming fixed outputs. > > > I've tried USE_REFERENCE_OUTPUT := 0 on the Makefile, but the > test.log still print...

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote: > On 12 March 2013 16:48, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > >> The former mode is historically what the test suite did, the latter mode >> is substantially faster (and independent of bugs in the native CC). >> > > Yes, I agree this is better for many cases, but

On 12 March 2013 19:21, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > +1 > > There are a couple of example implementations here which are only a few > lines long: > http://wiki.osdev.org/Random_Number_Generator I was going to rant about the quality of simple LCGs but it seems that *all* standard implementations rely on that, so the argument of using a standard library against a one-liner is void. ;) Now, on to the practical issues: is there a place where this can be added once and used everywhere in th...

On Mar 12, 2013, at 12:48, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: On 12 March 2013 19:21, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > +1 > > There are a couple of example implementations here which are only a few > lines long: > http://wiki.osdev.org/Random_Number_Generator I was going to rant about the quality of simple LCGs but it seems that *all* standard implementations rely on that, so the argument of using a standard library against a one-liner is void. ;) Now, on to the practical issues: is there a place where this can be added once and used everywhere in th...