You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
linear_congruential_engine: add using more precision to prevent overflow (#81583)
This PR is a followup to #81080.
This PR makes two major changes to how the LCG operation is computed:
The first is that I added an additional case where `ax + c` might
overflow the intermediate variable, but `ax` by itself won't. In this
case, it's much better to use `(ax mod m) + c mod m` than the previous
behavior of falling back to Schrage's algorithm. The addition modulo is
done in the same way as when using Schrage's algorithm (i.e. `x += c -
(x >= m - c)*m`), but the multiplication modulo is calculated directly,
which is faster.
The second is that I added handling for the case where the `ax`
intermediate might overflow, but Schrage's algorithm doesn't apply (i.e.
r > q). In this case, the only real option is to increase the precision
of the intermediate values. The good news is that - for `x`, `a`, and
`c` being n-bit values - `ax + c` will never overflow a 2n-bit
intermediary, meaning this promotion can only happen once, and will
always be able to use the simplest implementation. This is already the
case for 16-bit LCGs, as libcxx chooses to compute them with 32-bit
intermediate values. For 32-bit LCGs, I simply added code similar to the
16-bit case to use the existing 64-bit implementations. Lastly, for
64-bit LCGs, I wrote a case that calculates it using `unsigned __int128`
if it is available to use.
While this implementation covers a *lot* of the missing cases from
#81080, this still won't compile **every** possible
`linear_congruential_engine`. Specifically, if `a`, `c`, and `m` are
chosen such that it needs 128-bit integers, but the platform doesn't
support `__int128` (eg. 32-bit x86), then it will fail to compile.
However, this is a fairly rare case to see actually used, and libcxx
would be in good company with this, as [libstdc++ also fails to compile
under these
circumstances](https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87744).
Fixing **this** gap would require even **more** work of further
complexity, so that would probably be best handled by a different PR
(I'll put more details on what that PR would entail in a comment).
0 commit comments