weimingz added a comment. We can wrap the random_device as a minstd_rand, a linear congruential enginer that a lot of C lib uses for rand(). However based on documentation, we should just provides dummy implementation which throws an exception in the constructor of random_device [1,2] But compared with run-time exception, a link time error is better if we simply skip the implementation. Any thoughts?
[1] > explicit random_device(const string& token = implementation-defined ); > ... > Throws: A value of an implementation-defined type derived from exception if > the random_device could not be initialized. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/n4659.pdf section 29.6.6 Class random_device (page 1082) [2] > Notice that random devices may not always be available to produce random > numbers (and in some systems, they may even never be available). This is > signaled by throwing an exception derived from the standard exception or when > a number is requested with operator() http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/random/random_device/ Repository: rCXX libc++ https://reviews.llvm.org/D41316 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
