17 Dec
2003
17 Dec
'03
11:17 p.m.
Chris McAuliffe (cmca@alpha.c2.org) wrote: : >One tangerine-flavord Starburst to the first cypherpunk who can give : >a rough estimate for the results of the sub-expression: : > (random() & 0xff) & 0x3500 : : Well, actually, it depends on whether the bytes are treated as signed or : unsigned, and we don't know for sure that IPG wanted them treated as : unsigned. This means IPG either: : : a) can't write portable code, or : b) really are as stupid as we are giving them credit for. a) is obvious, since they explicitly say that they coded it in 80x86 assembler, but I wouldn't discount the possibility of b) being true also.