>>! In D6442#17, @mclow.lists wrote: > Your changes look good; but now I'm wondering if you want to accept both > `"/dev/random"` and `"/dev/urandom"` as valid tokens.
I don't want /dev/random because the NaCl interface I'm using doesn't guarantee "very high quality randomness" and doesn't block when such randomness isn't available. User code that expects such randomness should hard-fail (and fall back as makes sense for them), instead of getting lower quality randomness. NaCl has, for example, SSH clients that rely on similar (non-C++) random device interfaces, and knowing that the source of randomness is bad is pretty important to them (not that OpenSSL and friends have a great track record). > Should the windows implementation also accept only `"/dev/random"` and > `"/dev/urandom"` as valid tokens? I wouldn't offer /dev/random unless the implementation actually meets the expectations of users. > That would enable us to make the test portable; and help people to write > cross-platform code. I think the lack of platform portability should go back to WG21 LEWG ;-) Agreed that the test is now ugly... but hey it's correct! ================ Comment at: include/__config:118 @@ +117,3 @@ + // std::random_device is instead exposed through a NaCl syscall. +# define _LIBCPP_USING_NACL_RANDOM 1 +#endif // defined(__native_client__) ---------------- mclow.lists wrote: > I don't think you need to actually set `_LIBCPP_USING_NACL_RANDOM` to a value. > > #define _LIBCPP_USING_NACL_RANDOM > > is sufficient. Done. http://reviews.llvm.org/D6442 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
