From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Moreton Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#32605: [w64] (random) never returns negative Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 21:34:09 +0100 Message-ID: <86bl62s8qm.fsf@gmail.com> References: <855zzpf86u.fsf@gmail.com> <87zhx1ktp0.fsf@gmx.net> <87zhwwhp9i.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtpmls3p.fsf_-_@gnus.org> <83o8a2dbjo.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="26062"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (windows-nt) To: 32605@debbugs.gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:YTRi4jPGxkR4LaipcuNGAHzAxmY= Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 12 22:35:10 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mEHPy-0006ZO-48 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 22:35:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57246 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mEHPw-0003Qm-NE for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 16:35:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46770) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mEHPq-0003Qe-Eu for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 16:35:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:56663) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mEHPq-00033F-7u for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 16:35:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mEHPq-0000Yi-1d for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 16:35:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <855zzpf86u.fsf@gmail.com> Resent-From: Andy Moreton Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 20:35:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 32605 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: confirmed X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.16288004692103 (code B ref -1); Thu, 12 Aug 2021 20:35:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Aug 2021 20:34:29 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39976 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mEHPI-0000Xr-QK for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 16:34:29 -0400 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:44750) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mEHPE-0000Xg-IU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 16:34:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46544) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mEHPE-0003P6-2o for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 16:34:24 -0400 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]:37180) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mEHPC-0002Zf-PN for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 16:34:23 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mEHP8-0005Mg-UU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 22:34:18 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: 5 X-Spam_score: 0.5 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: (0.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:211707 Archived-At: On Thu 12 Aug 2021, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen >> Cc: 32605@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii >> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 15:17:46 +0200 >> >> Andy Moreton writes: >> >> >> This bug seems specific to 64 bit Windows builds. >> > >> > ON 64bit Windows, sysdep.c sets RAND_BITS to 31, but random (in w32.c) >> > only provides 30 bits. It looks like the mixing in get_random does not >> > result in the top fixnum bit being set. > > The 'random' emulation in w32.c was never adapted to w64. Surely real the problem is that RAND_BITS is 31, but the random() in w32.c does not provide 31 random bits (and thus fails to meet the API contract). In 32bit builds this problem is hidden because 30 bits are sufficient for a fixnum, so the value of bit30 in the result is ignored. On 64bit builds, 62 bits are needed for a fixnum, and trying to assemble a random number from multiple components does not work if RAND_BITS says 31 bits are usable, but the highest bit in that value is always zero. Also see > Instead of calling rand_as183 one more time, perhaps it's better to > trivially transform the value we have? Something like > > int val = ((rand_as183 () << 15) | rand_as183 ()); > #ifdef __x86_64__ > return 2 * val - 0x3FFFFFFF; > #else > return val; > #endif > > Andy, can you test this, please? That does not produce any negative random numbers within a reasonable number of attempts (a few dozen calls). Instead, calling rand_as183 again (as below) does produce positive and negative random numbers on 32bit and 64bit builds with a similar number of attempts: return ((rand_as183 () << 30) | (rand_as183 () << 15) | rand_as183 ()); While this may be less efficient, it at least meets the contract of providing 31 random bits. AndyM