We solved this for base/rand_util*, although the implementation is more "secure" meaning slow. I am not sure how much of a threat is with random(), because I imagine all implementations actually do hold locks, but it's not specified that way...
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:47 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2009/04/29 09:14:52, Dean McNamee wrote: >> >> Just to be annoying, we probably shouldn't be using random() (it's not > > thread >> >> safe, etc). > > Do you have a suggestion on what we should use instead? (Know of a good > open source & license-compatible replacement?) > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/100147 > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
