On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 4:42 AM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
On 06/04/2015 10:40 AM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
We *certainly* don't require high-quality random numbers for this
application. Regarding portability, there is one definite point in favor
of rand() (it's available on
Am 30.05.2015 um 19:12 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
Johannes Sixt j...@kdbg.org writes:
There you have it: Look the other way for a while, and people start
using exotic stuff... ;)
Is it exotic to have random/srandom? Both are in POSIX and 4BSD;
admittedly rand/srand are written down in C89 and
On 06/04/2015 10:40 AM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
Am 30.05.2015 um 19:12 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
Johannes Sixt j...@kdbg.org writes:
There you have it: Look the other way for a while, and people start
using exotic stuff... ;)
Is it exotic to have random/srandom? Both are in POSIX and 4BSD;
Johannes Sixt j...@kdbg.org writes:
There you have it: Look the other way for a while, and people start
using exotic stuff... ;)
Is it exotic to have random/srandom? Both are in POSIX and 4BSD;
admittedly rand/srand are written down in C89 and later, so they
might be more portable, but I
On Windows, we do not have functions srandom() and random(). Use srand()
and rand(). These functions produce random numbers of lesser quality,
but for the purpose (a retry time-out) they are still good enough.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt j...@kdbg.org
---
There you have it: Look the other way
5 matches
Mail list logo
