Re: out-of-line and arch-specific random_device

[Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>]

Hi,

Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> ha scritto:

>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>
>> This is done in the attached patch.  It's rather ugly because of the
>> business with the TR1 support.  Is this really still needed?  Can't
>we
>> remove that?  It really makes not much sense for a random_device to
>be
>> predictable.
>
>Er, I haven't read the context, but for simulations physicists usually
>require that random generators can be repeated, so 2 simulations with
>the
>same seed give the same results. But that may not be what you meant
>with
>predictable.

I haven't read the context either (I will actually do that later today) but I guess a clarification can be useful for future contributions too: in general, we consider tr1 stuff frozen, we are going to barely fix very serious regressions caused eg, by the compiler becoming more conforming. Let's just leave tr1 alone. If some C++11 headers still interact with it (by now, shouldn't) let's split and tell apart more.

Paolo