Bruno Haible writes:
> Hi Simon,
>
>> Hi. I re-read the discussion around getrandom vs gc-random and didn't
>> see any point in keeping the duplicated code. I believe the
>> getrandom-approach is better than what was in gc-gnulib.c today, so this
>> patch make it use that function. I have push
Hi Simon,
> Hi. I re-read the discussion around getrandom vs gc-random and didn't
> see any point in keeping the duplicated code. I believe the
> getrandom-approach is better than what was in gc-gnulib.c today, so this
> patch make it use that function. I have pushed the patch below.
The chang
