Julien TINNES <[email protected]> said:
> Not very important but ((get_random_int() % 4096) << 4) could be
> optimized into get_random_int() & 0xFFF0.
Check first if the compiler doesn't do it by itself.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
Horst von Brand wrote:
> Julien TINNES <[email protected]> said:
>
>>Not very important but ((get_random_int() % 4096) << 4) could be
>>optimized into get_random_int() & 0xFFF0.
>
>
> Check first if the compiler doesn't do it by itself.
The compiler cannot guess that get_random_int() gives a random result.
%4096 and & 0xFFF is'nt the same operation. But (get_random_int() %
4096) and (get_random_int() & 0xFFF) gives the same result: a random
number between 0 and 4095, without loss of entropy because 0xFFF has no
0 bit.
--
Julien TINNES - & france telecom - R&D Division/MAPS/NSS
Research Engineer - Internet/Intranet Security
GPG: C050 EF1A 2919 FD87 57C4 DEDD E778 A9F0 14B9 C7D6