Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #3014

Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG.

From David Bernier <david250@videotron.ca>
Newsgroups sci.math, comp.lang.c, comp.lang.fortran, comp.lang.pl1, comp.lang.ada
Subject Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG.
Date 2011-04-28 23:16 -0400
Organization NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
Message-ID <ipdahv02k4n@news1.newsguy.com> (permalink)
References <4dae2a4b$0$55577$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <4db90113$0$77724$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <ipbjqf$q4k$1@dont-email.me> <ipd5i2011p@news6.newsguy.com> <91ukucFq9cU2@mid.individual.net>

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Ian Collins wrote:
> On 04/29/11 01:50 PM, David Bernier wrote:
[...]

>> All we have now are George Marsaglia's posts and writings.
>> I know there's now a move on the way to 64-bit processors,
>> which I take to mean the x86_64 or AMD64 design/instruction set.
>
> The move happened several years ago (at least on the desktop and server).
>
>> In any case, with an executable compiled with a C compiler,
>> there's the function sizeof, which might be useful
>> in some cases at run time.
>
> Being pedantic, sizeof is a compile time operator when used with
> integral types.
>
>> For example, one could add to main() in C :
>>
>> printf("the size of an unsigned long in bytes is %d\n",
>> sizeof(unsigned long));
>
> Given the code as written, assert(sizeof(unsigned long) == 4) would be
> more use.
>
>> There's also the Itanium architecture and others, and even with a known
>> processor, some compiler flags affect the number of bytes for
>> some data types, such as "long double" with the -m64 flag
>> on Fujitsu SPARC IV with Sun Solaris (--> 16 byte long
>> doubles with the -m64 flag).
>>
>> AFAIK, sizeof(unsigned long) can be relied upon to give the size
>> in 8-bit bytes of a C "unsigned long".
>
> sizeof(unsigned long) is by definition the size in (not necessarily 8
> bit) bytes of an unsigned long.
>
>> Perhaps some documentation of language, machine, compiler, compiler
>> options examples where KISS4691 works as per the Marsaglia
>> specs could be helpful as a reference ...
>
> I suggested long ago the code be updated to use fixed width types, thus
> removing any ambiguities.

I'm sorry about the inaccuracies and falsehoods in my post.
I support your suggestion, perhaps also adding comments.
I'm the wrong person to update the code, but I would be
willing to test updated C code.

David Bernier

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-04-28 11:14 +1000
  Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "e p chandler" <epc8@juno.com> - 2011-04-28 07:42 -0400
    Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Gib Bogle <g.bogle@auckland.ac.nz> - 2011-04-29 12:55 +1200
    Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. David Bernier <david250@videotron.ca> - 2011-04-28 21:50 -0400
      Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-29 14:09 +1200
        Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-04-28 23:01 -0400
          Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-29 15:09 +1200
            Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Uno <merrilljensen@q.com> - 2011-05-08 00:34 -0700
              Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Marni Zollinger <marni@altgreendesigns.com> - 2011-05-10 23:38 -0600
          Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-04-29 07:15 +0100
        Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. David Bernier <david250@videotron.ca> - 2011-04-28 23:16 -0400
      Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-04-29 02:34 +0000
        Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-04-29 01:04 -0600
          Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-04-30 20:48 +1000
            Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-05-04 19:12 -0600
        Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-04-29 08:13 -0700
          Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-04-29 17:41 +0000
            Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-04-29 12:53 -0700
              Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-05 16:38 -0700
          Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-04-29 22:45 +0000
          Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> - 2011-04-29 23:36 -0500
      Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-04-29 22:43 +0000
    Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-04-29 19:43 +1000
  Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Thad Smith <ThadSmith@acm.org> - 2011-05-01 08:31 -0700
    Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-02 07:58 +1200
      Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-01 20:01 -0400
        Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-02 12:42 +1200
          Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-01 22:34 -0400
          Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-02 02:50 +0000
      Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Thad Smith <ThadSmith@acm.org> - 2011-05-01 21:21 -0700
        Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-02 08:31 +0100
          Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-05-23 16:52 +1000
          Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-05-23 14:18 +1000
            Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-05-23 17:20 +1000
          Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-05-23 16:52 +1000
          Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-05-23 16:52 +1000
          Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-05-23 16:53 +1000
            Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> - 2011-05-23 09:16 +0200
              Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Ilmari Karonen <usenet2@vyznev.invalid> - 2011-05-26 22:06 +0000
              Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-06-28 17:19 +1000
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "Vinzent Hoefler" <0439279208b62c95f1880bf0f8776eeb@t-domaingrabbing.de> - 2011-06-28 10:44 +0200
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-28 10:19 +0100
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> - 2011-06-28 11:14 +0200
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-06-28 21:59 +1000
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-28 13:16 +0100
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-06-28 11:44 -0400
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-28 08:33 -0400
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> - 2011-06-28 15:53 +0200
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Brian Salter-Duke <b_duke@bigpond.com.au> - 2011-06-28 22:39 +0000
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-28 08:32 -0400
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-28 14:03 +0100
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-28 10:25 -0400
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-28 16:01 +0100
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-28 20:20 -0400
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-29 01:38 -0700
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-28 10:04 -0600
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-28 17:36 +0100
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-28 10:51 -0600
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-28 20:27 -0400
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-28 19:00 -0600
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-29 19:48 +0300
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-28 10:52 -0600
                Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. David Bernier <david250@videotron.ca> - 2011-06-28 13:06 -0400
                Re: Wiki "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-06-29 10:00 +1000
                Re: Wiki James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-28 20:25 -0400
                Re: Wiki Ivan Shmakov <ivan@gray.siamics.net> - 2011-06-29 16:03 +0700
                Re: Wiki Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-30 13:39 +0100
                Re: Wiki Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-01 22:15 +0100
                Re: Wiki Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-28 18:52 -0600
                Re: Wiki James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-29 05:52 -0400
                Re: Wiki Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 10:12 -0400
                Re: Wiki Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-29 14:29 -0600
                Re: Wiki Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-06-29 07:43 +0100
                Re: Wiki Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 10:10 -0400
                Re: Wiki Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-29 19:42 +0300
                Re: Wiki Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-29 18:09 +0100
                Re: Wiki Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-06-29 18:48 +0100
                Re: Wiki Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 09:50 -0400

csiph-web