On 04.07.2013 16:30, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jul 2013, Andrey Chernov wrote: > >>>> We already pass that moment in the past, changing old&bad formula with >>>> new one which cause the same effect: non-repeating sequence in the very >>>> global scope. We already agree that repeating depends on something like >>>> OS release numbers. I can't find that discussion right now. >>> >>> But you are changing it in between releases. >> >> Development and stable branches are not official releases. > > sorry for nitpicking: ther is quite large difference between > official/unofficial status and users/vendors expectations regarding > interface/APIs stability. > > development (aka -current or head/) is not, while stable > (aka stable/*/) are, ate least they are great subject to POLA.
POSIX wording is unclear here. From common sense point of view: 1) all-time guaranteed results can come only from own formula and return values can change when the system libraries are changing (it is true for many other functions too) 2) nobody uses rand(3) nowadays. But in case you insist, I may just to not MFC this changes. -- http://ache.vniz.net/ bitcoin:13fGiNutKNHcVSsgtGQ7bQ5kgUKgEQHn7N _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
