public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "agriff at tin dot it" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/88935] std::random_shuffle does not work if the sequence is longer than RAND_MAX elements Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 06:38:44 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-88935-4-qUW3PXSUQg@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-88935-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88935 Andrea Griffini <agriff at tin dot it> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |agriff at tin dot it --- Comment #12 from Andrea Griffini <agriff at tin dot it> --- Even assuming rand() were generating hardware random numbers (not allowed by the standard because of srand, obviously), gcc would still be broken and performing a terrible random_shuffle with ranges larger than 64k elements (indeed non-uniformity becomes evident even at much smaller ranges). Mingw's rand() numbers are decent enough (and the period is not just 2**16, for example) but they're only 16 bit. This is allowed. The gcc bug is that it uses rand() (that can be just 16) bit to pick a random number between 0 and the size of the range even when the range is much bigger than 65536. Using rand() to feed data into a xorshift64 or something similar only for large ranges would fix, and would also keep shuffle of small ranges backward compatible (shuffling elements in small ranges exactly as current implementation does if starting from the same random seed). I've somewhere an half backed patch for doing that but quite frankly I don't know if I should polish it and submit here as, in all honesty, seems that in this case the maintainers simply don't want to have this bug fixed, for reasons that I really cannot understand.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-19 6:38 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top [not found] <bug-88935-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> 2024-01-16 15:59 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-16 16:04 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-16 17:31 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-16 17:31 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-16 17:37 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-16 21:25 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-06-19 6:38 ` agriff at tin dot it [this message] 2024-06-19 8:13 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-88935-4-qUW3PXSUQg@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).