From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: Reproducible run and binary logs (ideas) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 11:07:47 -0400 Message-ID: <20130919150746.GA2416@redhat.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: trinity-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Ildar Muslukhov Cc: trinity@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:48:40PM -0700, Ildar Muslukhov wrote: > Although, the way it is implemented right now is a bit risky, since > the rand functions are called in place, and we cannot guarantee that > no other code (like gcc libraries) hasn't made a call to rand() > function, thus moving the rand queue forward. This whole idea seems to hang on this statement, and it bothers me. Can this even happen ? I'm not sure it can. And even if it can, surely it's going to happen again when we re-run with the same seed, so we don't need to compensate for it. Before going too far down this rabbit hole, I want to be sure we're not over-engineering for a problem that actually isn't. Dave