https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99740
--- Comment #5 from Paul A. Voytas <pvoytas at gmail dot com> --- I understand random_number() is much better--which is great and I'll use it going forward. I was just trying to not have to recode a lot in cases where I used rand() because it was good enough. I certainly wouldn't expect bit equivalent behavior, this just seemed beyond that--since it was included for backwards compatibility but doesn't quite seem to be functionally so. Thanks for your time looking into it.
