Thanks for your comments, Alp. Regarding the static / global issue, I agree and I will try to take care of it.
@Stephen, Andrei What are your opinionson un-seeded / non-deterministic compilation? PS: Our discussion does not get aggregated here: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1803 Did I do something wrong? How can we change that? On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Alp Toker <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
