Re: Replacing rand()

["Adam D. Moss" <adam@...>]

Brian Hook wrote:
> Do you know of any comprehensive analysis of your FNV-1a 
> implementation against standards for randomness? 

Nope...

> MT isn't
> cryptographically secure (natively) either, but if FNV-1a is better 
> than rand() (which shouldn't be that difficult given how bad rand() 
> is),

I can't really say whether fnvrand is better than rand(), because
rand() varies from system to system (glibc's is pretty good in
most regards apart from speed, I understand).  I somewhat doubt that
it's as 'random' as MT, but I'm always ready to be surprised.

> (and assuming the license is compatible).

If it's not then I chose the wrong license.

--Adam
--
Adam D. Moss   . ,,^^   adam@gimp.org   http://www.foxbox.org/   co:3