From: "Randy" <umgrang0 AT cc DOT umanitoba DOT ca>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: srand()
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 12:58:43 -0400
Organization: The University of Manitoba
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <7sj2oj$256$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>
References: <7shlcr$bn2$1 AT canopus DOT cc DOT umanitoba DOT ca> <37ec69fb DOT 17055060 AT news DOT uswest DOT net> <37ECFF5F DOT AAD52476 AT btinternet DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: annex4-20.cc.umanitoba.ca
X-Trace: canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca 938282579 2214 130.179.153.180 (25 Sep 1999 18:02:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: Postmaster AT cc DOT umanitoba DOT ca
NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Sep 1999 18:02:59 GMT
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> You do realise that 'time' only returns the time accurate to the second,
and
>so, if your 645 runs were consecutive, this wasn't a very good test?

Can you suggest what to use instead?

This is what I have used, but wondered if there was a better (simpler) way
to do this:

void randomizer() {
  time_t current_time;
  struct tm *t;
  int seed;
  current_time = time(NULL);
  t = localtime(&current_time);
  srand(t->tm_sec + 60*t->tm_min + t->tm_hour*60*60);
}