|
- How to generate a random int in C? - Stack Overflow
Many implementations of rand() cycle through a short list of numbers, and the low bits have shorter cycles The way that some programs call rand() is awful, and calculating a good seed to pass to srand() is hard The best way to generate random numbers in C is to use a third-party library like OpenSSL For example,
- c++ - How does modulus and rand () work? - Stack Overflow
A second lesson is that this shows another way in which <random> is easier to use than rand() and manually computing your own distributions The built-in uniform_int_distribution allows you to directly state the desired, inclusive range
- Whats the Right Way to use the rand () Function in C++?
srand(rand()); This basically just did the same as the program did in the first place but outputted a different set of numbers (which makes sense since the first number generated by rand () is always 41 ) The only thing I could think of to make this more random is to: Have the user input a number and set that as the seed (which would be easy to implement, but this is a last resort) OR Somehow
- c - How does srand relate to rand function? - Stack Overflow
printf("%d\n", rand() % 50); Where is the connection between rand and srand? What I mean or expect is I assume rand () will get some parameter from srand () so it knows to generate different numbers each time I assume it would look something like rand (srand (time (null)); It's like initializing a variable without using it to me srand is being initialized, but I don't see it being used Does
- How are random numbers generated in C (rand function)?
1 rand() in C is commonly implemented as a Linear Congruential Generator (LCG), but there are a lot of random number generators out there Even though it is a classic way of generating random numbers, rand() has its limitations and I would suggest this other thread where the flaws of it are addressed Why is the use of rand () considered bad?
- What difference between rand () and random () functions?
9 Functions rand() and random() are either defined by POSIX since at least POSIX 1-2001 (and randomize() is not standardized) On older rand() implementations, and on current implementations on different systems, the lower-order bits are much less random than the higher-order bits When available, random() does not suffer of this issue
- Generate a value between 0. 0 and 1. 0 using rand () - Stack Overflow
The OP's reasoning for trying it was wrong, but had this been necessary, the UB could've been avoided by adding 1 0 instead of 1, which would coerce RAND_MAX to double type and so avoid the integer overflow
|
|
|