From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 29 17:46:12 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E334AFF4; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 17:46:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigwig.baldwin.cx [IPv6:2001:470:1f11:75::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6E222BD4; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 17:46:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [38.105.238.108]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3320FB94B; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:46:11 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RAND_MAX issue? Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:05:09 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.2-CBSD-20110714-p28; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201308291305.09931.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:46:11 -0400 (EDT) Cc: Jason Helfman X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 17:46:13 -0000 On Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:59:53 am Jason Helfman wrote: > Hello All, > > I am working on trying to resolve a build issue with devel/libvirt, and > posted to the libvirt mailing list, and received this feedback. Please read > this thread, and if you have any thoughts I would be interested in any > resolution. > > Here is a link to the thread: > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2013-August/msg01544.html > > Thanks! It mostly seems to not matter reading the followups. You would need to ask Bruce what he thinks about the assumption of RAND_MAX being 2^n-1 for some n. -- John Baldwin