On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:30:24AM -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote: > On Mar 23, 2010, at 06:48, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Guys, if you ask me, introducing all this additional complecity just > > to placate a static analysis tool is starting to get a bit silly. > > > > How about just putting a comment in the code that the usage of rand() > > is not security related at all and therefore perfectly fine? > > Yeah, I agree... if someone at some point in time drops rand(), we may need > to do this, but for now it really is "close enough"
rand() is part of ISO C ... Cheers, Daniel
pgplavpFovuak.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
