Different random shuffles generated when compiled with gdc than with dmd

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On 01/06/14 14:11, Ivan Kazmenko via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> I second the thought that reproducibility across different versions is an
> important feature of any random generation library.  Sadly, I didn't use a
> language yet which supported such a flavor of reproducibility for a significant
> period of time in its default random library, so I have to use my own randomness
> routines when it matters.  I've reported my concern [1] at the moment of
> breakage, but apparently it didn't convince people. Perhaps I should make a more
> significant effort next time (like a pull request) for the things that matter to
> me.  Well, now I know it does matter for others, at least.

Yes, there probably should be a high bar for changes that break reproducibility 
in this way (although there certainly shouldn't be a ban: we shouldn't 
artificially constrain ourselves to avoid significant improvements to the module).

I missed the debate at the time, but actually, I'm slightly more concerned over 
the remark in that discussion that the new uniform was ported from 
java.util.Random.  Isn't OpenJDK GPL-licensed ... ?