Hi,
FPC fixes_3_0, Linux X86:
"
var
i1: int32;
begin
for i1:= 0 to 5 do begin
writeln(random(int32(-16)));
end;
writeln('*');
for i1:= 0 to 5 do begin
writeln(random(int64(-16)));
end;
end;
"
produces
"
-9
-9
-11
-13
-10
-13
*
3
9
5
4
6
8
"
Is this intended? If n
On 20/05/17 14:36, Martin Schreiber wrote:
Is this intended? If not, which one is correct?
random(x) is undefined for negative parameters. It should have had an
unsigned parameter, like in Turbo Pascal (where it is word). Delphi
defines it as always returning a positive value, but I don't kno
On 20/05/17 13:00, Martin Schreiber wrote:
Hi,
FPC fixes_3_0, Linux X86:"var i1: int32;begin for i1:= 0 to 5 do begin
writeln(random(int32(-16))); end; writeln('*'); for i1:= 0 to 5 do begin
writeln(random(int64(-16))); end;end;"
produces"-9-9-11-13-10-13*395468"Is thi
El 20/05/2017 a las 14:57, Jonas Maebe escribió:
On 20/05/17 14:36, Martin Schreiber wrote:
Is this intended? If not, which one is correct?
random(x) is undefined for negative parameters. It should have had an
unsigned parameter, like in Turbo Pascal (where it is word). Delphi
defines it as
On 20/05/17 15:38, José Mejuto wrote:
At least in 3.0 (trunk not tested as I don't have it compiled) the first
and second random numbers are always the same value, so:
That is unrelated to this thread, but has been fixed in FPC 3.0.2.
Jonas
___
fpc-
On 5/20/17, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> random(x) is undefined for negative parameters. It should have had an
> unsigned parameter, like in Turbo Pascal (where it is word). Delphi
> defines it as always returning a positive value, but I don't know what
> happens if you pass a negative parameter there.
list
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Different results of random(int32) and random(int64)
for negative limit value
On 5/20/17, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> random(x) is undefined for negative parameters. It should have had an
> unsigned parameter, like in Turbo Pascal (where it is word). Delphi
>
Of course 64 and 32 bit are the sizes, not the platform! That may not be
clear.
On 5/24/2017 9:35 AM, Thaddy de Koning wrote:
Jonas, sorry for the late response:
The implementation is _*not *_undefined for negative values,_unless
you say that you define it as undefined_.
Because you seem
Jonas, sorry for the late response:
The implementation is _*not *_undefined for negative values,_unless you
say that you define it as undefined_.
Because you seem to have implemented it or most of it.
It renders a mathematical comparable distribution in the negative to the
positive values.
On 24/05/17 09:35, Thaddy de Koning wrote:
The implementation is _*not *_undefined for negative values,_unless you
say that you define it as undefined_.
That is exactly what "undefined" means: the implementation was not
designed to handle such values, so whatever you get as a result is
undefi
10 matches
Mail list logo
