From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Nov 10 02:28:59 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 0725B16A4CE; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:28:59 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from arginine.spc.org (arginine.spc.org [195.206.69.236])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5D54543D31; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:28:58 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from bms@spc.org)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by arginine.spc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6E5246520C; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:28:56 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from arginine.spc.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (arginine.spc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with LMTP id 14001-02-3; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:28:56 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from empiric.dek.spc.org (adsl-64-171-185-59.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
	[64.171.185.59])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by arginine.spc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 243A1651FA; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:28:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: by empiric.dek.spc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id 48B606482; Tue,  9 Nov 2004 18:28:44 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 18:28:44 -0800
From: Bruce M Simpson <bms@spc.org>
To: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <20041110022844.GC3114@empiric.icir.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk>,
	Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org,
	current@freebsd.org
References: <41900FE6.1060602@wadham.ox.ac.uk>
	<200411081809.37894.peter@wemm.org> <41910EF0.4060402@wadham.ox.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <41910EF0.4060402@wadham.ox.ac.uk>
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: RFC: Building libstdc++ with
	-frandom-seed=RepeatabilityConsideredGood
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:28:59 -0000

On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 06:39:44PM +0000, Colin Percival wrote:
> No.  This is strictly an issue of seeding gcc's random number generator 
> during the compile... the binary produced with this flag has a 1 in 2^32 
> chance of being produced randomly at present.  (Or maybe 1 in 2^64 on
> applicable systems, I can't remember.)

I like this idea. Binary upgrade snapshots for sizable things like base
system C++ compilers considered good.

Thanks again to kan@ for fixing c++filt and helping my team at work, btw.

BMS