From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: wkt@minnie.tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 07:09:19 +1000 (EST)
Subject: [TUHS] random(3) definition
In-Reply-To: <20030219203609.GA85462@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> from Peter Jeremy
 at "Feb 20, 2003 07:36:09 am"
Message-ID: <200302192109.h1JL9JU91269@minnie.tuhs.org>

In article by Peter Jeremy:
> Does anyone here know why the BSD random(3) is defined to return a
> positive int (31 bits) rather than a full 32 bits of pseudo-entropy?
> (This came up is a discussion comparing random(3) with arc4random(3)
> in another list).
> Peter

<wild guess>
Maybe it's a C-ism. With a 31-bit shift register, the overflow is going
to stay in a 32-bit variable where it can be dealt with in C. If they
had used a 32-bit shift register, then grabbing the overflow becomes
more difficult.
</wild guess>

	Warren