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: Sat, 14 Aug 2021 14:40:35 +0100 Message-ID: <86a6lkywj0.fsf@gmail.com> References: <855zzpf86u.fsf@gmail.com> <87zhx1ktp0.fsf@gmx.net> <87zhwwhp9i.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtpmls3p.fsf_-_@gnus.org> <83o8a2dbjo.fsf@gnu.org> <86bl62s8qm.fsf@gmail.com> <83czqhdfhm.fsf@gnu.org> <861r6xoxqa.fsf@gmail.com> <83sfzcbmfm.fsf@gnu.org> <86mtpksa0l.fsf@gmail.com> <83a6lkbe02.fsf@gnu.org> <86sfzcjnfr.fsf@gmail.com> <835yw8b6s3.fsf@gnu.org> <86fsvcz0pr.fsf@gmail.com> <834kbsb3uu.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="18759"; 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: sha1:7AyM3GOISTdfQdHEjcV9C7VYvWo= Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 14 15:41:12 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 1mEtuQ-0004hV-T5 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 14 Aug 2021 15:41:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46800 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mEtuO-00009M-UJ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 14 Aug 2021 09:41:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39870) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mEtuI-00008E-D0 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Aug 2021 09:41:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:60542) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mEtuI-0002aF-6C for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Aug 2021 09:41:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mEtuH-0001IS-WE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Aug 2021 09:41:02 -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: Sat, 14 Aug 2021 13:41:01 +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.16289484504959 (code B ref -1); Sat, 14 Aug 2021 13:41:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Aug 2021 13:40:50 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43855 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mEtu6-0001Hv-C8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 14 Aug 2021 09:40:50 -0400 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:34142) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mEtu5-0001Ho-7V for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 14 Aug 2021 09:40:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39358) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mEtu4-0008Sp-Tx for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Aug 2021 09:40:48 -0400 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]:36804) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mEtu0-0002C2-J5 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Aug 2021 09:40:48 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mEtty-000445-IR for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Aug 2021 15:40:42 +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:211835 Archived-At: On Sat 14 Aug 2021, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Andy Moreton >> Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2021 13:10:08 +0100 >> >> > Why not keep the 30 bits we produce today on 32-bit builds? >> >> For 32bit builds (FIXNUM_BITS is 30), either: >> >> a) define RAND_BITS to 30, 'random' calls 'rand_as183' twice. >> 'get_random' needs 1 call to 'random' (total 2 calls of 'rand_as183'). >> >> b) define RAND_BITS to 15, 'random' calls 'rand_as183' once. >> 'get_random' needs 2 calls to 'random' (total 2 calls of 'rand_as183'). >> >> For 64bit builds (FIXNUM_BITS is 62), either: >> >> a) define RAND_BITS to 30, 'random' calls 'rand_as183' twice. >> 'get_random' needs 3 calls to 'random' (total 6 calls of 'rand_as183'). >> >> b) define RAND_BITS to 15, 'random' calls 'rand_as183' once. >> 'get_random' needs 4 calls to 'random' (total 4 calls of 'rand_as183'). >> >> On 32bit builds both options are roughly equivalent. >> On 64bit builds option (b) is better as option (a) does unnecessary work. > > The above assumes we will never call 'random' except via 'get_random'. > Is that something we want to bet on? Option (b) fixes bugs in the current code. Currently 'get_random' is the only caller of 'random'. If inefficiency is a problem after later code changes, then then this issue can be revisited. Another option is to replace the imlementation of 'random' in w32.c with a different PRNG that can generate 31 bits more efficiently than using 3 calls to 'rand_as183'. Yet another possibility is to use 'getrandom' from gnulib instead of all of this Windows specific code, but that may bring a fresh set of concerns to be considered. AndyM