[Development] IT service break going on right now

2017-10-12 Thread Tony Sarajärvi
Hi Better late than never they say? We on moving bits and pieces from our old facilities maintaining our hardware to the new one. You’ve probably read about these moves earlier as we moved some of the infra. Now we try to move the last pieces. Today we move CI master server, our VPN,

Re: [Development] CSPRNG vs DPRNG

2017-10-12 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Thursday, 12 October 2017 10:58:25 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote: > Oops, if I mask off then I need to change the number I'm dividing by. New > implementation: > > static double generateDouble() > { > // use generate64() to get enough bits > quint64 x = generate64(); > quint64 limit =

Re: [Development] CSPRNG vs DPRNG

2017-10-12 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 10:42:53 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote: > Yet my code is not optimal, since it generates a check for the sign bit > because the x86 instruction CVTSI2SD takes a signed integer as input. That's > useless, since the result has only 53 bits of randomness anyway. So

Re: [Development] CSPRNG vs DPRNG

2017-10-12 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 10:06:05 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote: > The conversion to double via ldexp is what generateDouble() does in the new > class and is optional. Though I will take a look now to see if using ldexp() > produces better code than > > return double(generate64()) /

Re: [Development] CSPRNG vs DPRNG

2017-10-12 Thread Matthew Woehlke
On 2017-10-12 13:06, Thiago Macieira wrote: > libstdc++'s LCG does: > _M_x = __detail::__mod<_UIntType, __m, __a, __c>(_M_x); > return _M_x; > > which is > > _M_x = (__a * _M_x + __c) % __m; ...and yet, for some reason when I tested it, it was *quite* slow. Noticeably slower than

Re: [Development] CSPRNG vs DPRNG

2017-10-12 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 09:23:13 PDT Matthew Woehlke wrote: > The last time I found myself in need of a graphic/game quality PRNG, I > tried fiddling with both rand48 (POSIX) and C++11 MT, and ended up using > this instead: > > m_seed = ( ( 19073486328125 * m_seed ) + 1 ) &

Re: [Development] How to get Qt_5.9.1_PRIVATE_API

2017-10-12 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 09:28:20 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote: > The advantage is that you simply run a binary that was wasn't rebuilt. The > disadvantage is that you cannot run a binary that wasn't rebuilt. In editing the sentence, I deleted the wrong word. s/simply/cannot/ The

Re: [Development] How to get Qt_5.9.1_PRIVATE_API

2017-10-12 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 08:31:12 PDT Rex Dieter wrote: > Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On quarta-feira, 11 de outubro de 2017 13:39:03 PDT Rex Dieter wrote: > >> The patch's purpose looks appealing, are there "reasons(tm)" it cannot be > >> used by default upstream? > > > > Yeah: we

Re: [Development] CSPRNG vs DPRNG

2017-10-12 Thread Matthew Woehlke
On 2017-10-11 12:12, Thiago Macieira wrote: > I created a better option: QPseudoRandomGenerator (name bikeshedding later) > on the flight home from QtCS. It's a simple wrapper around the Mersenne > Twister > provided by the Standard C++ Library The last time I found myself in need of a

Re: [Development] Staging in '5.6'

2017-10-12 Thread Tuukka Turunen
+1 From: Development on behalf of Jani Heikkinen Date: Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 11.14 To: "development@qt-project.org" Subject: [Development] Staging in '5.6' Hi all, After Qt

Re: [Development] How to get Qt_5.9.1_PRIVATE_API

2017-10-12 Thread Rex Dieter
Thiago Macieira wrote: > On quarta-feira, 11 de outubro de 2017 13:39:03 PDT Rex Dieter wrote: >> The patch's purpose looks appealing, are there "reasons(tm)" it cannot be >> used by default upstream? > > Yeah: we don't want to. > > It would make the lives of the developers harder: you'd have

Re: [Development] Any supported platforms not tested in CI?

2017-10-12 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quarta-feira, 11 de outubro de 2017 04:23:58 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote: > Right now, Qt 5.10 has a configure-time warning if we don't find C++11 > . I'd like to make that an error and for that I've just pushed a > change that makes it so. https://codereview.qt-project.org/208212 -- Thiago

Re: [Development] CSPRNG vs DPRNG

2017-10-12 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 01:28:34 PDT Edward Welbourne wrote: > > So I created a better option: QPseudoRandomGenerator (name bikeshedding > > later) > I should note that "pseudo-random" is in fact a variant on "chaotic", so > perhaps QChaoticGenerator would be more apt. Chaos is

Re: [Development] How to get Qt_5.9.1_PRIVATE_API

2017-10-12 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 00:27:51 PDT Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: > On Donnerstag, 12. Oktober 2017 02:47:36 CEST Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On quarta-feira, 11 de outubro de 2017 13:39:03 PDT Rex Dieter wrote: > > > The patch's purpose looks appealing, are there "reasons(tm)" it

[Development] [Announce] Qt Creator 4.5 Beta released

2017-10-12 Thread List for announcements regarding Qt releases and development
We are happy to announce the release of Qt Creator 4.5 Beta! http://blog.qt.io/blog/2017/10/12/qt-creator-4-5-beta-released/ -- Eike Ziller Principal Software Engineer The Qt Company GmbH Rudower Chaussee 13 D-12489 Berlin eike.zil...@qt.io http://qt.io Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi, Juha

[Development] Staging in '5.6'

2017-10-12 Thread Jani Heikkinen
Hi all, After Qt 5.6.3 release, staging has been restricted in ‘5.6’ and I have monitored some of the changes trying to come in. I have noticed people sometimes trying to put some really minor P3 etc fixes in ‘5.6’ even those really shouldn’t be put in there. With ‘5.6’ we are already in

[Development] Qt6 and QCA

2017-10-12 Thread Tomaz Canabrava
Hello, After reading thiago's tougths about the QRandomGenerator I wonder about the status of the Qt Cryptographic Architecture. From what I know it's not a Qt project but it's whidely used for applications that depend on cryptography and ssl, but not activelly maintained. There are plans to

Re: [Development] Infra problems today

2017-10-12 Thread Tony Sarajärvi
With some luck we found the problem and fixed it. I had one misleading warning which confused me which brought me to believe that everything might be going down today. I'll keep an extra eye on things today though. -T From: Tony Sarajärvi Sent: torstai 12. lokakuuta 2017 11.15 To:

Re: [Development] CSPRNG vs DPRNG

2017-10-12 Thread Edward Welbourne
Thiago Macieira (11 October 2017 18:12) > I've come to the conclusion that adding QRandomGenerator, a (mostly) > cryptogrphically-secure PRNG, without adding a corresponding deterministic > PRNG is a bad idea, especially with the changes that went in to the examples > that changed all uses of

[Development] Infra problems today

2017-10-12 Thread Tony Sarajärvi
Hi We are experiencing some infra problems currently. The CI is down, and by the symptoms over there, I'd expect other services might follow soon. We're investigating. -Tony ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org

Re: [Development] How to get Qt_5.9.1_PRIVATE_API

2017-10-12 Thread Allan Sandfeld Jensen
On Donnerstag, 12. Oktober 2017 02:47:36 CEST Thiago Macieira wrote: > On quarta-feira, 11 de outubro de 2017 13:39:03 PDT Rex Dieter wrote: > > The patch's purpose looks appealing, are there "reasons(tm)" it cannot be > > used by default upstream? > > Yeah: we don't want to. > > It would make