Yes we have a mix of statics (c++11) call_once and even
boost:thread_specific_ptr for some of these parts, it is a bit dirty right
now. We found the boost thread_specific_ptr  (
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_57_0/doc/html/thread/thread_local_storage.html)
was a decent fix for initialising the PRNG as this has the same issues
really and it's not clear when starting with the lib (took us hours of
testing over months to notice).


On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Eric Cano <[email protected]> wrote:

> Is there any chance this will happen?


I think it should in this case here as this is a hard failure. I keep
looking at the lib and wish I had time to work on it and submit a patch for
a rvalue ref version. I think the speed improvements could be substantial
and the newer c++11/14 features could improve many situations like you are
mentioning here. It would cause two versions to be available really as
adding a ton (it would be a ton) of #ifdef's would be a nightmare. I see
even boost is now allowing new libs to make the choice of backwards
conforming or not.

Its a distant option at the moment tough, but I feel there are a couple of
issues in the code that could benefit from modernising. Its a brilliant
codebsae though, but as we get beater sanitsers and compilers some of the
tricks used are caught as potential bugs and sometimes they are.

No offence Wei / Jeffrey, it is a truly excellent lib, don't misunderstand
my eagerness to see it move along as a detrimental statement in any way.




-- 

David Irvine
twitter: @metaquestions
blog:  http://metaquestions.me

-- 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users" 
Google Group.
To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected].
More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at 
http://www.cryptopp.com.
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Crypto++ Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to