Is uninitialized local variable the fastest random number generator?

Solution 1:

As others have noted, this is Undefined Behavior (UB).

In practice, it will (probably) actually (kind of) work. Reading from an uninitialized register on x86[-64] architectures will indeed produce garbage results, and probably won't do anything bad (as opposed to e.g. Itanium, where registers can be flagged as invalid, so that reads propagate errors like NaN).

There are two main problems though:

1. It won't be particularly random. In this case, you're reading from the stack, so you'll get whatever was there previously. Which might be effectively random, completely structured, the password you entered ten minutes ago, or your grandmother's cookie recipe.

2. It's Bad (capital 'B') practice to let things like this creep into your code. Technically, the compiler could insert reformat_hdd(); every time you read an undefined variable. It won't, but you shouldn't do it anyway. Don't do unsafe things. The fewer exceptions you make, the safer you are from accidental mistakes all the time.

The more pressing issue with UB is that it makes your entire program's behavior undefined. Modern compilers can use this to elide huge swaths of your code or even go back in time. Playing with UB is like a Victorian engineer dismantling a live nuclear reactor. There's a zillion things to go wrong, and you probably won't know half of the underlying principles or implemented technology. It might be okay, but you still shouldn't let it happen. Look at the other nice answers for details.

Also, I'd fire you.

Solution 2:

Let me say this clearly: we do not invoke undefined behavior in our programs. It is never ever a good idea, period. There are rare exceptions to this rule; for example, if you are a library implementer implementing offsetof. If your case falls under such an exception you likely know this already. In this case we know using uninitialized automatic variables is undefined behavior.

Compilers have become very aggressive with optimizations around undefined behavior and we can find many cases where undefined behavior has lead to security flaws. The most infamous case is probably the Linux kernel null pointer check removal which I mention in my answer to C++ compilation bug? where a compiler optimization around undefined behavior turned a finite loop into an infinite one.

We can read CERT's Dangerous Optimizations and the Loss of Causality (video) which says, amongst other things:

Increasingly, compiler writers are taking advantage of undefined behaviors in the C and C++ programming languages to improve optimizations.

Frequently, these optimizations are interfering with the ability of developers to perform cause-effect analysis on their source code, that is, analyzing the dependence of downstream results on prior results.

Consequently, these optimizations are eliminating causality in software and are increasing the probability of software faults, defects, and vulnerabilities.

Specifically with respect to indeterminate values, the C standard defect report 451: Instability of uninitialized automatic variables makes for some interesting reading. It has not been resolved yet but introduces the concept of wobbly values which means the indeterminatness of a value may propagate through the program and can have different indeterminate values at different points in the program.

I don't know of any examples where this happens but at this point we can't rule it out.

Real examples, not the result you expect

You are unlikely to get random values. A compiler could optimize the away the loop altogether. For example, with this simplified case:

void updateEffect(int  arr[20]){
    for(int i=0;i<20;i++){
        int r ;    
        arr[i] = r ;
    }
}

clang optimizes it away (see it live):

updateEffect(int*):                     # @updateEffect(int*)
    retq

or perhaps get all zeros, as with this modified case:

void updateEffect(int  arr[20]){
    for(int i=0;i<20;i++){
        int r ;    
        arr[i] = r%255 ;
    }
}

see it live:

updateEffect(int*):                     # @updateEffect(int*)
    xorps   %xmm0, %xmm0
    movups  %xmm0, 64(%rdi)
    movups  %xmm0, 48(%rdi)
    movups  %xmm0, 32(%rdi)
    movups  %xmm0, 16(%rdi)
    movups  %xmm0, (%rdi)
    retq

Both of these cases are perfectly acceptable forms of undefined behavior.

Note, if we are on an Itanium we could end up with a trap value:

[...]if the register happens to hold a special not-a-thing value, reading the register traps except for a few instructions[...]

Other important notes

It is interesting to note the variance between gcc and clang noted in the UB Canaries project over how willing they are to take advantage of undefined behavior with respect to uninitialized memory. The article notes (emphasis mine):

Of course we need to be completely clear with ourselves that any such expectation has nothing to do with the language standard and everything to do with what a particular compiler happens to do, either because the providers of that compiler are unwilling to exploit that UB or just because they have not gotten around to exploiting it yet. When no real guarantee from the compiler provider exists, we like to say that as-yet unexploited UBs are time bombs: they’re waiting to go off next month or next year when the compiler gets a bit more aggressive.

As Matthieu M. points out What Every C Programmer Should Know About Undefined Behavior #2/3 is also relevant to this question. It says amongst other things (emphasis mine):

The important and scary thing to realize is that just about any optimization based on undefined behavior can start being triggered on buggy code at any time in the future. Inlining, loop unrolling, memory promotion and other optimizations will keep getting better, and a significant part of their reason for existing is to expose secondary optimizations like the ones above.

To me, this is deeply dissatisfying, partially because the compiler inevitably ends up getting blamed, but also because it means that huge bodies of C code are land mines just waiting to explode.

For completeness sake I should probably mention that implementations can choose to make undefined behavior well defined, for example gcc allows type punning through unions while in C++ this seems like undefined behavior. If this is the case the implementation should document it and this will usually not be portable.

Solution 3:

No, it's terrible.

The behaviour of using an uninitialised variable is undefined in both C and C++, and it's very unlikely that such a scheme would have desirable statistical properties.

If you want a "quick and dirty" random number generator, then rand() is your best bet. In its implementation, all it does is a multiplication, an addition, and a modulus.

The fastest generator I know of requires you to use a uint32_t as the type of the pseudo-random variable I, and use

I = 1664525 * I + 1013904223

to generate successive values. You can choose any initial value of I (called the seed) that takes your fancy. Obviously you can code that inline. The standard-guaranteed wraparound of an unsigned type acts as the modulus. (The numeric constants are hand-picked by that remarkable scientific programmer Donald Knuth.)

Solution 4:

Good question!

Undefined does not mean it's random. Think about it, the values you'd get in global uninitialized variables were left there by the system or your/other applications running. Depending what your system does with no longer used memory and/or what kind of values the system and applications generate, you may get:

1. Always the same.
2. Be one of a small set of values.
3. Get values in one or more small ranges.
4. See many values dividable by 2/4/8 from pointers on 16/32/64-bit system
5. ...

The values you'll get completely depend on which non-random values are left by the system and/or applications. So, indeed there will be some noise (unless your system wipes no longer used memory), but the value pool from which you'll draw will by no means be random.

Things get much worse for local variables because these come directly from the stack of your own program. There is a very good chance that your program will actually write these stack locations during the execution of other code. I estimate the chances for luck in this situation very low, and a 'random' code change you make tries this luck.

Read about randomness. As you'll see randomness is a very specific and hard to obtain property. It's a common mistake to think that if you just take something that's hard to track (like your suggestion) you'll get a random value.

Solution 5:

Many good answers, but allow me to add another and stress the point that in a deterministic computer, nothing is random. This is true for both the numbers produced by an pseudo-RNG and the seemingly "random" numbers found in areas of memory reserved for C/C++ local variables on the stack.

BUT... there is a crucial difference.

The numbers generated by a good pseudorandom generator have the properties that make them statistically similar to truly random draws. For instance, the distribution is uniform. The cycle length is long: you can get millions of random numbers before the cycle repeats itself. The sequence is not autocorrelated: for instance, you will not begin to see strange patterns emerge if you take every 2nd, 3rd, or 27th number, or if you look at specific digits in the generated numbers.

In contrast, the "random" numbers left behind on the stack have none of these properties. Their values and their apparent randomness depend entirely on how the program is constructed, how it is compiled, and how it is optimized by the compiler. By way of example, here is a variation of your idea as a self-contained program:

#include <stdio.h>

notrandom()
{
        int r, g, b;

        printf("R=%d, G=%d, B=%d", r&255, g&255, b&255);
}

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
        int i;
        for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)
        {
                notrandom();
                printf("\n");
        }

        return 0;
}

When I compile this code with GCC on a Linux machine and run it, it turns out to be rather unpleasantly deterministic:

R=0, G=19, B=0
R=130, G=16, B=255
R=130, G=16, B=255
R=130, G=16, B=255
R=130, G=16, B=255
R=130, G=16, B=255
R=130, G=16, B=255
R=130, G=16, B=255
R=130, G=16, B=255
R=130, G=16, B=255

If you looked at the compiled code with a disassembler, you could reconstruct what was going on, in detail. The first call to notrandom() used an area of the stack that was not used by this program previously; who knows what was in there. But after that call to notrandom(), there is a call to printf() (which the GCC compiler actually optimizes to a call to putchar(), but never mind) and that overwrites the stack. So the next and subsequent times, when notrandom() is called, the stack will contain stale data from the execution of putchar(), and since putchar() is always called with the same arguments, this stale data will always be the same, too.

So there is absolutely nothing random about this behavior, nor do the numbers obtained this way have any of the desirable properties of a well-written pseudorandom number generator. In fact, in most real-life scenarios, their values will be repetitive and highly correlated.

Indeed, as others, I would also seriously consider firing someone who tried to pass off this idea as a "high performance RNG".