Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!think.com!paperboy!hsdndev!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Complexity of reallocating storage (was users command crap)
Message-ID: <23341:Jan3018:27:1091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 91 18:27:10 GMT
References: <6662@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <15325:Jan2903:19:4991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <19010@rpp386.cactus.org>
Organization: IR
Lines: 13

In article <19010@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes:
> In article <15325:Jan2903:19:4991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> >Any single-pass ``users'' has to either use quadratic time or be a rude
> >abuser of resources. Why not use two passes and be done with it?
> No, it doesn't.  It can get it exactly right the first time and be done
> with it.

No, your solution insists upon allocating space for empty entries in
utmp. If utmp has ten thousand slots and there are only a thousand
people logged in, you're using ten times too much space. Other than that
it's fine.

---Dan