Xref: utzoo comp.unix.sysv386:8325 comp.lang.c:39499
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,comp.lang.c
Path: utzoo!censor!comspec!scocan!jim
From: jim@sco.COM (Jim Sullivan)
Subject: Re: time(0L) - history of a misconception (was Re: SCO password generator)
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.
Date: Wed, 22 May 1991 17:31:39 GMT
Message-ID: <1991May22.173139.389@sco.COM>
References: <1991May14.040042.15199@jpradley.jpr.com> <588@sherpa.UUCP> <1141@mwtech.UUCP> <381@tmcsys.UUCP>
Sender: news@sco.COM (News administration)

lothar@tmcsys.UUCP (L. Hirschbiegel) writes:

>In article <1141@mwtech.UUCP> martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel) writes:
>>In article <588@sherpa.UUCP> rac@sherpa.UUCP (Roger Cornelius) writes:
>>[...]
>>>	long seed = time(0L);
>>	                 ^^--------- wrong
>>	           time((long *)0);
>>	                ^^^^^^^^^--- right
>
>If you still don't understand: I'll help you! 
>For this little test program:
>
>main()
>{
>time(0L);
>time((long *)0);
>}
>
>the assembler output from my C compiler is:

	< assembly code illustrating that 0L and (long *)0 both map to 0 >

This if from YOUR C compiler.  And on many systems, similar code would be
produced.  But on many systems 0L and (long *)0 are not equal, so writers
of portable code should do the right thing and not assume that the entire
work is the same as their machine.

>
>Repeat after me: IT DOESN'T MATTER :-)

But it does. 

>>I'm always wondering why people can't grasp
>>the difference between a plain integer, a long and pointers to any of it.

Here! Here!


>>Martin Weitzel, email: martin@mwtech.UUCP, voice: 49-(0)6151-6 56 83
>Lothar Hirschbiegel

-- 
Jim Sullivan				"Revenue Canada:
SCO Canada, Inc.			 	You Make It
Toronto, Ontario, Canada		 	We Take It"
jim@scocan.com, ...!uunet!scocan!jim	- Backbench comic in the Globe