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!news3.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!213.75.85.109.MISMATCH!newsfeed.kpn.net!pfeed09.wxs.nl!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: James Kuyper Newsgroups: sci.math,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 22:34:01 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <4dae2a4b$0$55577$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <4db90113$0$77724$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <4dbd6e9c$0$12957$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com> <925saiFj03U7@mid.individual.net> <926cvoFj03U8@mid.individual.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 02:33:58 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx03.eternal-september.org; posting-host="z6x13JPcEt9SiQRsy+GiBQ"; logging-data="699"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+/EFi+oCtOYkA0ZjliJ8Hn74s3a0DSCaM=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Thunderbird/3.1.8 In-Reply-To: <926cvoFj03U8@mid.individual.net> Cancel-Lock: sha1:yf3DMkE2A4rJVSmOXfy9w5C+Z2I= Xref: g2news2.google.com sci.math:234606 comp.lang.c:126729 comp.lang.fortran:41560 comp.lang.pl1:2452 comp.lang.ada:20088 Date: 2011-05-01T22:34:01-04:00 List-Id: On 05/01/2011 08:42 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > On 05/ 2/11 12:01 PM, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 05/01/2011 03:58 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 05/ 2/11 03:31 AM, Thad Smith wrote: >>>> >>>> Here is a modification of the program with masking to produce correct results >>>> with any conforming C implementation. It truncates where when required. A good >>>> optimizer should eliminate the unneeded masking for 32-bit unsigned long. >>> >>> Why oh why can't people just use fixed width types? >> >> Because, in C at least, it's not mandatory for a conforming >> implementation to support any of the fixed-width types. > > But it's hardly rocket science to declare them for implementations that > lack them. More accurately, it's generally impossible to declare them for implementations that lack them. If the implementation choses not to provide a particular fixed-width type, it's generally because it's not possible to do so on that platform; less frequently, it's because it would be inconvenient to support them. -- James Kuyper