From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 109d8a,232e89dd4cc3c154 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: 1014db,232e89dd4cc3c154 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,232e89dd4cc3c154 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: 101deb,dea70f96af442ea2 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: 103376,232e89dd4cc3c154 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gid9ef9b79ae9,gid4516fb5702,gid8d3408f8c3,gidbda4de328f,gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news6 From: David Bernier Newsgroups: sci.math,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:50:54 -0400 Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95 Message-ID: References: <4dae2a4b$0$55577$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <4db90113$0$77724$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p4331f817db27d9919d919e5751e5ed8fb61329599fef36a1.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.18) Gecko/20110410 Fedora/2.0.13-1.fc14 SeaMonkey/2.0.13 In-Reply-To: Xref: g2news2.google.com sci.math:234211 comp.lang.c:126613 comp.lang.fortran:41255 comp.lang.pl1:2416 comp.lang.ada:20049 Date: 2011-04-28T21:50:54-04:00 List-Id: e p chandler wrote: > > > "robin" wrote in message > > | So, what is all this? In particular, is there something special about > | the value of 3.7 billion? > >> No, nothing special at all. >> The purpose of the exercise is just to confirm that after generating >> 1000000000 random numbers, you get the same answer as George does. > > Alas, I think you are making some strong assumptions about the state of > computing in the hereafter. > 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. 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. For example, one could add to main() in C : printf("the size of an unsigned long in bytes is %d\n", sizeof(unsigned long)); 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". Perhaps some documentation of language, machine, compiler, compiler options examples where KISS4691 works as per the Marsaglia specs could be helpful as a reference ... David Bernier -- The MegaPenny Project | One Trillion Pennies: