Donald Sharp <[email protected]> writes: > Quagga is using both srandom()/random() and srand()/rand(). Both look > like they are available for stdc under linux. Seems like it would be > a good idea to consolidate down to one set of function calls instead > of mixing/matching. Does anyone care which one we could switch to?
What's available under Linux is not really the question, as that tends to lead to nonportable code; the real point is what C99 and POSIX require, since quagga is in theory portable to any POSIX system and in practice runs at least on the BSDs and Solaris. In this case it seems Linux is following standards :-) Reading opengroup.org, it seems that rand(), while specified in C99, is considered obsolete and random(), specified in POSIX, is preferred. http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/random.html So moving all srand/rand to random() sounds reasonable. Arguably there should only be a single seeding, but it's not clear to me that quagga is using this in places where cryptographically strong random numbers are needed, vs just avoiding timer synchronization.
pgppNZJd1BVu5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
