FYI, this change
double random(double min, double max)
{
-return floor(((double)rand() / ((unsigned int)RAND_MAX + 1)) * (max -
min + 1) + min);
+return comphelper::rng::uniform_real_distribution(min, max);
}
in sc/source/core/opencl/opencl_device.cxx has made the opencl
On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 10:18 +0300, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
The problem was that it called
comphelper::rng::uniform_real_distribution() with two equal arguments,
which is invalid use of that API, and causes the current
implementation to get stuck in a loop in the boost code. (I didn't
bother
On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 16:44 +0100, Caolán McNamara wrote:
The latest coverity has taken a dislike to rand and we've a big block
of cids, cid#1242372 to cid#1242410 now marked with
static_checker_DC.WEAK_CRYPTO Don't call.
We have our own random pool stuff in sal, is there a drop in
On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 23:35 +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
* direct usage of boost::random for fancy distributions in Calc,
sc/source/ui/StatisticsDialogs/RandomNumberGeneratorDialog.cxx
* include/comphelper/random.hxx:
double uniform() function with [0,1) range
implemented with
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Caolán McNamara caol...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 23:35 +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
* direct usage of boost::random for fancy distributions in Calc,
sc/source/ui/StatisticsDialogs/RandomNumberGeneratorDialog.cxx
* include/comphelper/random.hxx:
The latest coverity has taken a dislike to rand and we've a big block
of cids, cid#1242372 to cid#1242410 now marked with
static_checker_DC.WEAK_CRYPTO Don't call.
We have our own random pool stuff in sal, is there a drop in replacement
for rand in there somewhere or a common pattern we could
On 02/10/14 17:44, Caolán McNamara wrote:
The latest coverity has taken a dislike to rand and we've a big block
of cids, cid#1242372 to cid#1242410 now marked with
static_checker_DC.WEAK_CRYPTO Don't call.
there were definitely bad implementations of standard C library random
functions; no
