From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Walle Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 23:34:18 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 1/3] lib: add rand() function In-Reply-To: <20120511212947.061A5206496@gemini.denx.de> References: <1336671134-16342-1-git-send-email-michael@walle.cc> <201205112320.15462.michael@walle.cc> <20120511212947.061A5206496@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <201205112334.19132.michael@walle.cc> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Am Freitag 11 Mai 2012, 23:29:47 schrieb Wolfgang Denk: > Dear Michael Walle, > > In message <201205112320.15462.michael@walle.cc> you wrote: > > > This is inconsequent. Either we assume that the user will seed > > > srand(), then y should not be initialized at all, so it goes to the > > > BSS segment and does not waste space in the binary image. Or we want > > > to deal with cases where the user doesn call srand(), and then we > > > should provide a bit better than such a static initialization. > > > > Again, i wanted to stick with the regular rand() srand() semantics. > > > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/rand.html > > "If rand() is called before any calls to srand() are made, the same > > sequence shall be generated as when srand() is first called with a seed > > value of 1." > > Good point. > > But then y should be initialized as 1 ? I'm no crypto expert, so i sticked with the values/examples from the cited paper. But i guess it shouldn't make any difference, i'll change it to 1. -- michael