From: Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com   
      
   Michael Sanders  writes:   
   > On Thu, 08 Jan 2026 22:46:42 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:   
   >> But your original statement implied that clang would *use* that   
   >> particular piece of code, which didn't make much sense.  Were you   
   >> just asking about how the __OpenBSD__ macro is defined, without   
   >> reference to srand?   
   >   
   > Well, under OpenBSD I plan on using:   
   >   
   > #ifdef __OpenBSD__   
   >     srand_deterministic(seed);   
   > #else   
   >     srand(seed);   
   > #endif   
   >   
   > But what I was asking is whether or not gcc would recognize   
   > the __OpenBSD__ macro (why wouldn't I'm assuming) since clang   
   > is the default compiler.   
      
   OK.   
      
   Do you understand that your original question was unclear?   
      
   You said that "clang would use" the quoted 5-line code snippet,   
   and asked whether "gcc does as well".  It's not clang or gcc that   
   would use that code.  It would be used by a programmer writing code   
   to be compiled with clang or gcc.   
      
   I understand now what you meant.  I'd like to be sure that you   
   understand the problem with the question as you originally wrote it.   
      
   I have clang 19.1.7 and gcc 13.2.0 installed on OpenBSD 7.8, and   
   both predefine the macro __OpenBSD__.   
      
   > But also about srand()... you've got me really wondering why   
   > OpenBSD would deviate from the standard as they have. I get   
   > that the those folks disagree because its deterministic, but   
   > its the accepted standard to be deterministic with srand().   
   >   
   > Only speaking for myself here, rather than srand_deterministic()   
   > and srand() (that's not deterministic under OpenBSD) it   
   > would've made more sense to've implemented srand_non_deterministic()   
   > and left srand() alone. That design decision on their part only   
   > muddies the waters in my thinking. Live & learn =)   
      
   I don't know why they made that decision.  It was clearly deliberate.   
   I agree that adding an srand_non_deterministic() function would   
   have been better.   
      
   --   
   Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com   
   void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)