From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <9front-bounces@9front.inri.net> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from 9front.inri.net (9front.inri.net [168.235.81.73]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 216FA22301 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2024 15:02:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from duke.felloff.net ([216.126.196.34]) by 9front; Sat Apr 20 09:01:55 -0400 2024 Message-ID: <162AEF1BBB4F9502FA37B39011F4EA0D@felloff.net> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 15:01:45 +0200 From: cinap_lenrek@felloff.net To: 9front@9front.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: managed managed markup configuration STM framework Subject: Re: [9front] [PATCH] libc: replace lrand's algorithm Reply-To: 9front@9front.org Precedence: bulk actually, no. lrand() is fine. theres no change needed i think: r = (s[0] + s[1]) >> 33; note, we shift 33. not 32 that means the MSB is always 0. so disregard. -- cinap