We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
pcg_output_xsh_rr_128_64
Is the shift of 29 here: https://github.com/imneme/pcg-c/blob/e2383c4bfcc862b40c3d85a43c9d495ff61186cb/include/pcg_variants.h#L166 correct?
From what I can tell from the paper, it should be floor((6+64)/2) = 35?
floor((6+64)/2) = 35
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
With the algorithm here the shift is actually 35, rather than 29.
So the expected files of tests are also wrong.
Sorry, something went wrong.
I'll look into it, but it does seem like you've found an issue!
Thanks!
Melissa.
On Jun 14, 2016, at 7:04 AM, スノル [email protected] wrote: With the algorithm here the shift is actually 35, rather than 29. So the expected files of tests are also wrong. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
On Jun 14, 2016, at 7:04 AM, スノル [email protected] wrote:
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
No branches or pull requests
Is the shift of 29 here:
https://github.com/imneme/pcg-c/blob/e2383c4bfcc862b40c3d85a43c9d495ff61186cb/include/pcg_variants.h#L166
correct?
From what I can tell from the paper, it should be
floor((6+64)/2) = 35
?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: