On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 09:00:53AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> Let me be more clear here. I'd prefer if we did the check for
> 'rand' 'rand48' 'random' (and possibly also /dev/urandom) and
> set each of FLOOD_HAS_RAND* individually. This is the way you are
> using it in the code, where you have something like:
>
> #if FLOOD_HAS_RAND
> rand()
> #elsif FLOOD_HAS_RAND48
> rand48()
> ...
Eh? No. We shouldn't do it that way. I want the configure to pick the
"best" PRNG available and I want to use it. In the code snippet you
just posted, you'd almost always use rand - which is the absolutely
worst one you could use. So, you'd have to code it like:
#if FLOOD_HAS_RANDOM
random()
#elsif FLOOD_HAS_RAND48
rand48()
#else FLOOD_HAS_RAND
rand()
#endif
-1. The actual code is almost always going to want USE #defines
not HAS #defines. Relying on the order of HAS is counter-intuitive -
therefore, I'll veto the hell out of it. =-) You would typically
want the HAS #defines when they are all equivalent functions - you
want the USE #defines when there is a definite priority as to which
one you want (and it is very possible that a system will have all
of the different possibilities). Think of shmem in APR...
> That allows us to choose which rand we have in the #ifdefs instead of
> relying on autoconf. If this is unsatisfactory, we'll have to go with
> the compromise, which is FLOOD_USE_RAND* and FLOOD_HAS_RAND*
It should be trivial to add FLOOD_HAS_RAND* macros from what I committed
last night - I just don't think you would add any value by having the
HAS_RAND* macros for the reasons described above.
And, really, this should be moved into APR not flood.
My $.02. -- justin
