A word of warning about running the BigCrush test. Looking through the results of the first run I noticed that some of the tests generate test statistics that would reject the relevant hypothesis at the 1% confidence level, even though all of the tests were reported as having passed (since the criterion is p in the range [0.001,0.999]). Since we are dealing with a random number generator it is possible that one run may lead to no failures but another may generate a number of failures. Hence I ran the same test a second time. The execution times were very similar (29h 40m vs 29h 41m). The second run reported a single failure - Test 89 PeriodsInStrings , r = 20 with a p-value of 6.4e-4. Hence, one should really run these tests several times to get a proper assessment of the frequency of failures - a bit tedious given the amount of time required but essential. Further, comparisons across operating systems or hardware shouldn't be based on a single run only. I am now running the revised version of glibtest with the Dec 29th version of glib.c and will report the results when they finish. However, I have one initial observation. Sven reported that the updated version of the ziggurat executes substantially faster than the earlier version. The early tests in the BigCrush suite give a different picture - the execution times are all slightly longer using the new gretl_one_snormal than using the previous ran_normal_ziggurat. Is this a consequence of the change needed to use one and a quarter random ints per normal draw, since the previous code in ran_normal_ziggurat seems to correspond to the Voss procedure? As a rough guess the increase in execution time is of the order of 5-10%. Gordon