On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:48:40PM -0700, Ildar Muslukhov wrote: > Although, the way it is implemented right now is a bit risky, since > the rand functions are called in place, and we cannot guarantee that > no other code (like gcc libraries) hasn't made a call to rand() > function, thus moving the rand queue forward. This whole idea seems to hang on this statement, and it bothers me. Can this even happen ? I'm not sure it can. And even if it can, surely it's going to happen again when we re-run with the same seed, so we don't need to compensate for it. Before going too far down this rabbit hole, I want to be sure we're not over-engineering for a problem that actually isn't. Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe trinity" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
