On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:48:40PM -0700, Ildar Muslukhov wrote:
> Although, the way it is implemented right now is a bit risky, since
> the rand functions are called in place, and we cannot guarantee that
> no other code (like gcc libraries) hasn't made a call to rand()
> function, thus moving the rand queue forward.
This whole idea seems to hang on this statement, and it bothers me.
Can this even happen ? I'm not sure it can.
And even if it can, surely it's going to happen again when we re-run
with the same seed, so we don't need to compensate for it.
Before going too far down this rabbit hole, I want to be sure we're not
over-engineering for a problem that actually isn't.
Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe trinity" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
