Re: [HACKERS] random() function produces wrong range

Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> The Linux man pages indicate that the behavior and underlying
> implementation of random() and rand() are the same (so I just picked
> one).

Ah, well, there's your problem. Whoever did this part of the library
on Linux took shortcuts. On older-line systems, rand() is a
considerably older and crummier generator than random(). It would
definitely not be a wise decision to use rand() instead.

It appears that on SysV-heritage machines, rand() delivers 15-bit
results (which is what I'm getting) whereas on BSD-heritage platforms
it produces 31-bit results. But even the BSD machines say

The spectral properties of rand() leave a great deal to be
desired. drand48(3) and random(3) provide much better,
though more elaborate, random-number generators.

(quote from SunOS 4.1 man page for rand()).

I believe using random() is the right thing. The portability bug here
is the assumption that RAND_MAX applies to random() (or is even defined;
none of the man pages I've looked at so far mention it). But all the
machines say that the output of random() is 31 bits, so INT_MAX should
work.

regards, tom lane