On Sun, Mar 08, 2020 at 01:27:22PM +0100, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Willy, > > when looking at the newest PRNG commits I noticed that some places that > now use ha_random() still refer to RAND_MAX. You should check whether > that still is appropriate, because my understanding is that you are now > guaranteed to receive a specific number of bits.
Yes, I even want to simplify some of them because the initial reason was that random() only provides 31 bits and at some places we need 32 or even 64. Now we also have ha_random32() and ha_random64() precisely in preparation for this :-) Cheers, Willy
