X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F3F7F3875460 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com; s=default; t=1699721449; bh=7R3P6/nE7Tz8vihZ/GmIRlZZI0knP4TS+QPMtM2ZDew=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=CUKmLAzWk7vXxTsaZVsGYWTbAPpqwU/73TLT0kajmcmTmemuHB1blMiT94Jk1u7MD yg6aOijVx3lO2RhTHkN5RD+Rybc45tNDhbFOosKAis52K3ORDuUP3gJyQtJ6kbFXVd 1Sa0V2zldjHR0RzrxakPXQEd7D6+rTW4mkkyGZ8g= X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 081853858039 ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 081853858039 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1699721436; cv=none; b=wDPAdGR+zTgpEL16kbG66akvsueA7H0AnDLWsjmd7ipdwzOqYcSUu+FZjZAU/LfFz7wXzw1SsmWu1wh92uPWUg8U26A4xIEbbsQ/cJGlDjrvIYQS4u2Jul//0y4k07ZG8eNnuTtXIt4bkDoqoXHO89bBCe56UVpa6a/ASskrEYE= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1699721436; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KQASpEg/F98KlkLbOnuORedkBxqCVIBOtr6dFelmMOQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=m5O4CnXI67HY3woHwB8/Hq+4P4ZSXvRKzB+tKPJNwQpSulNQ3a6Z1v8DE4oO1GwVZvfvW7WLO0n4HpPg/nrHcCR9l0WVCQDPmootQl6YqdIT8XY0aPJHq4JLWprD3W9xsN4+0FaTXss2CkN9oqHT+kB9PC51m25DgoPKzdV6e2A= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2023 11:50:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: rand is not ISO C compliant in Cygwin To: Bruno Haible , cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <9938355 DOT c9vzh5UkMf AT nimes> <5748524 DOT yeFs27NDWt AT nimes> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <5748524.yeFs27NDWt@nimes> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, HTML_MESSAGE, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.30 X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: "Allen, Norton T. via Cygwin" Reply-To: "Allen, Norton T." Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com Sender: "Cygwin" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by delorie.com id 3ABGoo3Q020506 On 11/10/2023 5:27 PM, Bruno Haible wrote: > Norton Allen wrote: >> Cygwin/(newlib?) has chosen to avoid race conditions by making >> pseudo-random sequences in different threads independent. Although the >> standard does not require this, it does not prohibit it either. > I disagree. I cited the relevant sentences from the standard. This is the sentence you quoted that I am referring to: > The srand function is not required to avoid data races with other >     calls to pseudo-random sequence generation functions. ..." That is not the same as "... required never to avoid data races ...". "not required" means the sentence is not specifying--not requiring--any behavior, so you should not depend on the described behaviors. > > Other platforms (glibc, Android) avoid race conditions in rand() > by locking. Which is compliant with the standard. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Do they require the caller to implement their own race-avoidance approach via locking, or is it implemented within rand()? As you point out, there is no race condition here, but it looks to me as though the Cygwin strategy chooses to avoid race conditions by making the rand() state be entirely private to each thread. As a result, the call in rand_invocator_thread() acts as though no call to srand() has occurred. You are suggesting that the thread should inherit the rand state from the parent, which would certainly make the threads subject to race conditions, even if the calls themselves were thread-safe. Which value your thread gets would depend on how fast it ran relative to the other threads. Unless there is language in the standard that says the states should be shared, I don't see how the Cygwin approach violates the standard. That said, I am often wrong, and I'd be happy to have you point out my misunderstanding. -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple