On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/29/2013 10:33 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> >> Since gnulib has a working random_r() function can we just make
> >> gnulib replace the boneheaded freebsd impl ?
> >
> > Huh - the glibc man pages state that random_r returns RAND_MAX bits.
> > ra
On 08/29/2013 10:33 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Since gnulib has a working random_r() function can we just make
>> gnulib replace the boneheaded freebsd impl ?
>
> Huh - the glibc man pages state that random_r returns RAND_MAX bits.
> random_r is a glibc extension: POSIX only requires rand(), rand_r(
On 08/29/2013 10:03 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> I think I can fix libvirt to work around the boneheaded decision;
>> basically, since we cannot trust the full range of random_r to be evenly
>> distributed, I will have to tweak libvirt's call to truncate every call
>> to random_r to a subset o
On 08/29/2013 09:52 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>>
>>> #define RAND_MAX0x7ffd
>>
>> Huh? Why is this not 2**n-1? That violates assumptions we have made,
>> and is WHY your compile failed. It has nothing to do with clang vs. gcc
>> (both compilers would fail), it has to do with your chang
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 09:52:52AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/29/2013 09:43 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On 08/29/2013 09:35 AM, Jason Helfman wrote:
> >
>
> >>> stdlib.h:#defineRAND_MAX0x7fff
> >
> > Good.
> >
> >>>
> >>> -jgh
> >>>
> >>
> >> And on our current head
On 08/29/2013 09:43 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/29/2013 09:35 AM, Jason Helfman wrote:
>
>>> stdlib.h:#defineRAND_MAX0x7fff
>
> Good.
>
>>>
>>> -jgh
>>>
>>
>> And on our current head release (10) it is this:
>>
>> #define RAND_MAX0x7ffd
>
> Huh? Why is th
On 08/29/2013 09:35 AM, Jason Helfman wrote:
>>>
>> stdlib.h:#defineRAND_MAX0x7fff
Good.
>>
>> -jgh
>>
>
> And on our current head release (10) it is this:
>
> #define RAND_MAX0x7ffd
Huh? Why is this not 2**n-1? That violates assumptions we have made,
and is
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Jason Helfman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>
>> On 08/29/2013 08:58 AM, Jason Helfman wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > There is an initiative at FreeBSD in removing gcc from base system and
>> > using CLANG. That being said, we are tryi
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/29/2013 08:58 AM, Jason Helfman wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > There is an initiative at FreeBSD in removing gcc from base system and
> > using CLANG. That being said, we are trying to resolve issues of ports
> that
> > can't build without gcc
On 08/29/2013 08:58 AM, Jason Helfman wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There is an initiative at FreeBSD in removing gcc from base system and
> using CLANG. That being said, we are trying to resolve issues of ports that
> can't build without gcc. Libvirt fell into this group, and are curious if
> anyone has an
Hello,
There is an initiative at FreeBSD in removing gcc from base system and
using CLANG. That being said, we are trying to resolve issues of ports that
can't build without gcc. Libvirt fell into this group, and are curious if
anyone has any ideas on why this breakage would occur.
Here is a link
11 matches
Mail list logo
