Mike Cheponis <mac@Wireless.Com> writes:

> On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Dave Sainty wrote:
> 
> > > HOWEVER, the behavior on NetBSD is still wrong, I maintain.  Here's my
> > > argument:
> >...
> > This is hardly a real-world example though!
> 
> Ahh, who's to say it isn't "real-world"?  I found this NetBSD bug while
> using srandom() and random().
> 
> The NetBSD behaviour is wrong.

Wrong according to who besides you? POXIX and SUSv3 agree that using
values outside of the range of unsigned char + EOF results in
undefined behavior.

I think you are wrong to believe that the C parameter list is the
last word in determining what set of values are valid input.

        - Nathan