On Tue, 17 May 2016 20:41:28 +0200
demerphq wrote:
>
> If you fork before you call (s)rand then each child process will have
> their own copy of the flag, which will be false, and thus will cause
> srand() to be called in the subprocess properly.
>
So now I'm lost : I understand this as meaning
On 17 May 2016 at 20:37, André Warnier wrote:
> On 17.05.2016 20:26, demerphq wrote:
>>
>> On 17 May 2016 at 20:23, demerphq wrote:
>>>
>>> On 16 May 2016 at 20:03, Bruce Johnson
>>> wrote:
> On May 16, 2016, at 10:15 AM, André Warnier (tomcat)
> wrote:
>
>
> join
On 17.05.2016 20:26, demerphq wrote:
On 17 May 2016 at 20:23, demerphq wrote:
On 16 May 2016 at 20:03, Bruce Johnson wrote:
On May 16, 2016, at 10:15 AM, André Warnier (tomcat) wrote:
join "", map +(0..9,"a".."z","A".."Z")[rand(10+26*2)], 1..32 ;
looks at first sight to me like quite i
On 17 May 2016 at 15:10, André Warnier wrote:
> On 17.05.2016 14:11, Vincent Veyron wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 17 May 2016 10:16:43 +0200
>> André Warnier wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see above any signifiant difference in configuration between the
>>> servers, apart
>>> from the fact that the "faulty" s
On 17 May 2016 at 20:23, demerphq wrote:
> On 16 May 2016 at 20:03, Bruce Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> On May 16, 2016, at 10:15 AM, André Warnier (tomcat)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> join "", map +(0..9,"a".."z","A".."Z")[rand(10+26*2)], 1..32 ;
>>>
>>> looks at first sight to me like quite inefficient a
On 16 May 2016 at 20:03, Bruce Johnson wrote:
>
>> On May 16, 2016, at 10:15 AM, André Warnier (tomcat) wrote:
>>
>>
>> join "", map +(0..9,"a".."z","A".."Z")[rand(10+26*2)], 1..32 ;
>>
>> looks at first sight to me like quite inefficient and probably likely to
>> generate the same string regul
On 17.05.2016 14:11, Vincent Veyron wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 10:16:43 +0200
André Warnier wrote:
I don't see above any signifiant difference in configuration between the
servers, apart
from the fact that the "faulty" server runs a 64-bit version of perl.
Sorry : slightly digressive rant a
Your test are on the command line, not inside apache and thus more or less
worthless.
As André clearly showed the issue is almost certainly with the way srand is
being called
inside apache
Add a call to srand with something suitably random from time pid and maybe
/dev/random
INSIDE apache bef
On Tue, 17 May 2016 10:16:43 +0200
André Warnier wrote:
>
> I don't see above any signifiant difference in configuration between the
> servers, apart
> from the fact that the "faulty" server runs a 64-bit version of perl.
Sorry : slightly digressive rant about the fact that every time I compar
On 17.05.2016 08:28, Vincent Veyron wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2016 22:45:14 +
"Bruce Johnson" wrote:
I don’t think it would be likely for Vincent to ever see this once, let alone
have it rise to the issue of a problem if it were strictly about non-randomness
of the rand() function.
Inde
10 matches
Mail list logo
