[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux