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!news1.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news1 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 23:16:10 -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> <91ukucFq9cU2@mid.individual.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pbe120a0173fc67c3717f3842ef8ae5cd200ccdfd5075b104.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: <91ukucFq9cU2@mid.individual.net> Xref: g2news2.google.com sci.math:234218 comp.lang.c:126619 comp.lang.fortran:41260 comp.lang.pl1:2421 comp.lang.ada:20054 Date: 2011-04-28T23:16:10-04:00 List-Id: 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