Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-03 06:13:36

On 2 Dec 2014 at 21:05, Stephan T. Lavavej wrote:

> [Niall Douglas]
> > the hard part is generating a cryptographically secure random number.
> > I don't believe C++ 11 even has such a secure generator in <random> even ...
> 
> The Standard indirectly suggests that random_device should be such a
> generator, and VC guarantees this. 

Out of curiosity, does VC thunk through to the Windows Crypto API, 
and therefore require that the environment variable block contains 
the right COM initialisation magic (I ran into this "feature" 
recently, it was confounding)?

I am curious because libstdc++ apparently uses plain old RDRAND on 
x86 CPUs with support for that opcode. That surprised me. I would 
have thought that /dev/random was plenty, and moreover, considerably 
safer as kernel random number generators will get hot patched 
quickly.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ 
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/