random number again
Darn, you are correct. In my libc (gcc 3.4), RAND_MAX was 2^31-1, and I didn't see any reason why it would be less than INT_MAX in any library - or at least, why it would be as small as 32767 with a 4-byte int.
Quote:Original post by Sharlin
Humm? I thought we had at least 32-bit processors and OS's these days... oh well :) Maybe some ages-old compilers might have a 16-bit int, but most? Doubtful.
Darn, you are correct. In my libc (gcc 3.4), RAND_MAX was 2^31-1, and I didn't see any reason why it would be less than INT_MAX in any library - or at least, why it would be as small as 32767 with a 4-byte int.
I'm wrong that RAND_MAX is usually 32768...in fact it is 32767 that is 2^15 - 1.
MSVC 6 is 32767, I already tested some time ago .
To be 100% sure I wrote a complex program; I show you the code
#include <iostream>#include <math.h>int main(){ std::cout << RAND_MAX << std::endl; return 0;}It reports 32767. This time compiled under XP with CodeBlocks/Mingw/gcc (latest version).
In stdlib.h you can read
/* * RAND_MAX is the maximum value that may be returned by rand. * The minimum is zero. */#define RAND_MAX 0x7FFFWhy RAND_MAX is only 32767 ?
Because it sucks. [smile]
Dont use rand() if you need random numbers. The alternatives are simply and efficient.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
