srand(time(NULL)) generating similar results [duplicate] - c++

Question

This question already has answers here:
rand() function in C is not random even when seeded
(2 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I don't understand why srand() generates so similar random numbers between runs!
I am trying to run the following code
srand ( time(NULL) );
int x = rand();
cout << x << endl;
However instead of a proper random number I always end up with almost the same number, which is growing slowly as the time goes. So I get numbers like: 11669, 11685, 11701, 11714, 11731.
What am I doing wrong?
I am using Visual Studio 2010 SP1.
OK, is srand() really that simple? I mean how would anyone call it a random function?
srand(1) => rand() = 41
srand(2) => rand() = 45
srand(3) => rand() = 48
srand(4) => rand() = 51
....

Answer 1

First, srand() isn't a random function; it sets up the starting point
of a pseudo-random sequence. And somewhat surprisingly, your
implementation of rand() seems to be returning a value based on the
previous state, and not on the newly calculated state, so that the first
value after a call to srand() depends very much on the value passed to
srand(). If you were to write:
srand( time( NULL ) );
rand();
std::cout << rand() << std::endl;
, I'm sure you'll see a lot more difference.
FWIW: I tried the following on both Windows and Linux:
int
main()
{
srand( time( NULL ) );
int r1 = rand();
std::cout << r1 << ' ' << rand() << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Invoked 10 times at a one second interval, I got:
16391 14979
16394 25727
16397 3708
16404 25205
16407 3185
16410 13933
16417 2662
16420 13411
16427 2139
with VC++ under Windows—you'll note the very low variance of the
first call to rand()—and
1256800221 286343522
955907524 101665620
1731118607 991002476
1428701871 807009391
44395298 1688573463
817243457 1506183315
507034261 1310184381
1278902902 54648487
2049484769 942368151
1749966544 1833343137
with g++ under Windows; in this case, even the first value read is
relatively random.
If you need a good random generator, you'll probably have to use one
from Boost; the standard doesn't say much about what algorithm should be
used, and implementations have varied enormously in quality.

Answer 2

Make sure you're doing
srand ( time(NULL) );
while(condition) {
int x = rand();
cout << x << endl;
}
and not
while(condition) {
srand ( time(NULL) );
int x = rand();
cout << x << endl;
}
The first way the seed is changed every iteration. The second way you are performing the random function on a very similar seed each iteration (because time doesn't change much).

Answer 3

If you are trying to run the program quickly in succession and get different random numbers each time, initializing with the current time is the wrong approach. What you need is a source of entropy; this question might get you started. Replacing time(NULL) with QueryPerformanceCounter() might be a good start, since it updates much more rapidly, but it's still somewhat predicatble - I don't know if that's important to you or not.

Answer 4

Since you have Visual Studio 2010, you can use the portable random device interface from modern C++ instead of time() to seed srand():
#include <iostream>
#include <random>
#include <cstdlib>
int main()
{
std::random_device rd;
std::srand(rd());
std::cout << std::rand() << '\n';
}
Now running the program repeatedly will still produce different values. The same code will work with GNU g++ on Linux or any other modern compiler.

Answer 5

OK, all credits go for Mark Ransom for his answer for explaining actually what is happening. I did not find source code in his linked question, so I googled it and found this, what is perfectly working on Windows. So for srand on windows, here is the source code to generate better srand() seed.
#include <windows.h>
int main()
{
LARGE_INTEGER cicles;
QueryPerformanceCounter(&cicles);
srand (cicles.QuadPart);
return 0;
}

Answer 6

I just had the same problem. The seeds were too similar even after tens of seconds. Since I get my numbers in this fashion:
int FlRandomInt(int LowerLimit, int UpperLimit)
{
int Result;
Result = rand();
Result=LowerLimit+Result*(UpperLimit-LowerLimit)/RAND_MAX;
return Result;
}
which I know is not the best way to go for integers, but I use the same procedure to generate random floats and doubles, so it's good to verify if those are significantly different, instead of just at the last decimals.
Anyway just wanted to post a solution that works fine for me. It's simply multiplying the time seed by 100:
srand(( unsigned )time( 0 ) * 100 );
Hope it helps, even if I'm sure there are more elegant ways around the problem.

Answer 7

From #James Kanze's test it seems that it is a peculiarity of VC++'s C runtime (though I am certain other libraries suffer in the same way). This library also suffers from having a minimum allowable RAND_MAX, but that's another issue.
The solution to the low variance of the initial value is simply to discard it:
void seed_rand( unsigned int seed )
{
srand( seed ) ;
(void)rand() ;
}
int main()
{
seed_rand( time( NULL ) );
int r1 = rand();
std::cout << r1 << ' ' << rand() << std::endl;
return 0;
}

Answer 8

#include"stdio.h" //rmv coding for randam number access using c++
#include"conio.h"
#include"time.h"
void main()
{
time_t t;
int i;
srand(time(null));
for(i=1;i<=10;i++)
cout<<(unsigned)rand()%100-90<<"\t";
for(i=1;i<=10;i++)
cout<<(char)rand()%100-90<<"\t";
getch();
}