Stephen,
I've looked a bit closer at the clang patch.
I don't understand why this is global:
llvm::RandomNumberGenerator::SetSalt(SaltString);
LLVM and clang have a strict library design so this would be unreliable
for anything other than the simplest single-threaded sequential use modes.
We're getting close to fixing the last remaining statics so it doesn't
seem right to introduce a new one.
Alp.
On 22/01/2014 23:39, Alp Toker wrote:
On 22/01/2014 23:17, Stephen Crane wrote:
Here's the patch for LLVM: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1802 We
ended up basing the RNG on the already integrated implementation of
MD5, to avoid any external dependencies. We are really just waiting
on review of the LLVM patch now that Julian has modified a few things
to take care of a performance concern.
That sounds good.
David Majnemer has already done preliminary review of the clang patch
and it looks sane to me.
It will additionally need user documentation explaining the purpose of
the feature and noting that stability is not guaranteed between
different revisions of the compiler, even with the same seed.
It's my opinion that un-seeded / non-deterministic compilation
shouldn't be supported at all. If that isn't the case already would it
be reasonable change for you to accommodate?
Apart from that, just blocked on the LLVM changes.
Alp.
- stephen
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Alp Toker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The clang side looks fine, but there's very little context as to
what's going on here so not possible to review it just like that.
The patch rebases to clang ToT fine but doesn't build due to
missing RNG facilities in LLVM -- could you give a refresher of
the status of that with a link? It's been long enough that not
everyone remembers the discussion.
The last I remember of the discussion was that linking to OpenSSL
can be painful, and it doesn't feel right as a dependency. What
are the other options for pseudo RNG and could we have a simpler
scheme?
That'll help get things moving.
Alp.
On 22/01/2014 21:48, Julian Lettner wrote:
Is there anything stopping this from going forward?
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1803
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
-- http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts
--
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
