From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: No Itisnt Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Random numbers (again) broken on 64-bit platforms Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 17:06:07 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87vd82554r.fsf@delenn.lan> <87mxt6maud.fsf@delenn.lan> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1280701212 1094 80.91.229.12 (1 Aug 2010 22:20:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 22:20:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Guile Development To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 02 00:20:11 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ofgt4-00029y-3h for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 Aug 2010 00:20:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59433 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ofgt0-0008T2-IT for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 01 Aug 2010 18:20:02 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47701 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ofgsm-0008QJ-7C for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Aug 2010 18:19:52 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OfgfY-0001z8-Lr for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Aug 2010 18:06:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-qy0-f176.google.com ([209.85.216.176]:39226) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OfgfY-0001z0-Jo for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Aug 2010 18:06:08 -0400 Original-Received: by qyk34 with SMTP id 34so1296675qyk.0 for ; Sun, 01 Aug 2010 15:06:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zuY/ODz2baLK3tm41o/d32Wh/enaypJYWOC+rYVYquc=; b=PK2VIeAdEmNtTBdNyrcmjrG/pbLaZfRb+1PdtBXC1am+pPqrBQ7+iZFIJvhrm3fBk9 R+zbJs98VotXo2IG1GOyveK9OjbKodTkFBM2TqVieEYpUncqyGUwiCfZAcq3DXuCYbye 1DfielL1M/95Fg3Dtr6xBlyjqt/xYsYA8PKB0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=dXPBJNqUX6P0Dhqhpj/GAsNzggJ2zdY4ykOkqwIkuZiIDBuQyq0EaNVvzD4QOnFlV/ 8HU+RofySD6ctWAQSJF86sIW/6J/rk780VEWzpoYjbrodo9l70CSjrSUzEswQ/+NTpGi A0V2pVl1XLqH8uXU/7gWYYK8aOeS88gKQY/lM= Original-Received: by 10.220.124.153 with SMTP id u25mr3562500vcr.66.1280700367463; Sun, 01 Aug 2010 15:06:07 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.220.190.134 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Aug 2010 15:06:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:10753 Archived-At: On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Andy Wingo wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun 01 Aug 2010 20:44, Andreas Rottmann writes: > >> I've spotted an issue with your fix: the way 64-bit random numbers are >> generated in scm_random() is bogus; > > Grr, indeed. Fix applied, thanks. > >>> Would you be interested in [importing another rng]? We would need >>> some test suites too, I think, and possibly changes to the scm_t_rng >>> structure. >>> >> Sorry, I don't have the inclination to work on this ATM. Also, random >> number tests are kinda hard to write -- it's random stuff, after all >> :-). > > Too bad, we could really use it, and now is the time for any needed ABI > breaks. Thanks anyway for the fix! I may have time for doing this later on but definitely not this month; do you guys have any sort of time frame for a release? And also: is there any way to set the lower bound of a random call?