Date:	Sun, 1 Aug 1999 11:26:35 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Clemens Valens <c DOT valens AT mindless DOT com>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: how about "more" random ?
In-Reply-To:	<933323259.1410@www.remarq.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990801112523.20304J-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Clemens Valens wrote:

> I think the difference is due to limited wordlength, which
> means rounding errors and overflow. For instance, when you
> multiply by 100 before deviding, you can have an overflow.

In principle, yes; but not in this case.  The largest value that
rand() can return is approximately 2e9, and multiplying it by 100
after conversion to a double will never overflow, since even 1e308
won't overflow a double.

- Raw text -