> The comment in the random() function indicates that its author thought
> it'd produce output in the range 0..1, which seems like a pretty
> reasonable definition:
> Unfortunately, at least on my box, it produces no such thing. random()
> actually yields values in the range 0..2^31-1 --- while RAND_MAX is
> only 32767, because it applies to the rand() function not random().
> So what I actually get is floating-point output in the range 0..65535.
> This is, to say the least, a bizarre definition.
Or, a bizarre machine. Linux (where I did the testing) produces the
> I would like to propose changing the code to
> /* result 0.0-1.0 */
> result = ((double) random()) / INT_MAX;
Actually, I depend on the behavior being as advertised, which is what
you would have expected. This is true on Linux boxes from RedHat-5.2 to
Mandrake-7.1. Not sure why your machine is different, but if there is a
more portable way to define this let's find it. Otherwise, get used to
#ifdef HPUX ;)
The Linux man pages indicate that the behavior and underlying
implementation of random() and rand() are the same (so I just picked
one). Would it be better to try using rand() instead?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Guo Bin||Date: 2000-08-02 06:54:44|
|Subject: Re: random() function produces wrong range|
|Previous:||From: Alex Pilosov||Date: 2000-08-02 03:06:44|
|Subject: Re: mac.c|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Jerome Raupach||Date: 2000-08-02 07:55:20|
|Subject: copy with libpq?|
|Previous:||From: KMiller||Date: 2000-08-01 22:55:15|
|Subject: 1763 pq_flush messages|