Seeds could even be dangerous here, as these numbers are supposed to be cryptographically secure. If you need a seedable PRNG for testing, just use rand().
Ben On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 09:57, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > Good afternoon, > > fully correct. Seeds are not needed anymore. > > > best, > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019, 12:44 PM Arvids Godjuks <arvids.godj...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019, 05:52 David Rodrigues <david.pro...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Just to know, can we have a random_seed() for > random_int()/random_bytes() > > > like we have mt_srand() to mt_rand()? > > > > > > I don't know if random_int() is more "random" than mt_rand(), but if it > > is, > > > so maybe is valid a random_seed() function. > > > > > > -- > > > David Rodrigues > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > random_bytes/random_int use proper random generation source - > /dev/urandom > > in most cases (and appropriate source on windows) - that's the whole > point > > why they were introduced. There is no need for seeds nor it can even be > > initialized with a seed. > > They are, as far as I understand, cryptographically safe random > generators. > > > > I suggest reading up on the subject, the RFC and the whole thing. Their > > introduction was well covered by various core devs in blog posts. > > > > > > > >
