Xref: utzoo comp.unix.sysv386:8349 comp.lang.c:39524
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!unido!aega84!tmcsys!lothar
From: lothar@tmcsys.UUCP (L. Hirschbiegel)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: time(0L) - history of a misconception (was Re: SCO password generator)
Message-ID: <383@tmcsys.UUCP>
Date: 23 May 91 21:31:35 GMT
References: <1991May14.040042.15199@jpradley.jpr.com> <588@sherpa.UUCP> <1141@mwtech.UUCP> <381@tmcsys.UUCP> <1991May22.190908.5311@virtech.uucp>
Reply-To: lothar@tmcsys.UUCP (L. Hirschbiegel)
Organization: Private Site
Lines: 24

In article <1991May22.190908.5311@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes:
>
>The code you show won't work reliably on systems where the size of
>a pointer is different from the size of an integer (for ex: large 
>model programs on an 8086 or 80286). 

This was posted to newsgroup "comp.UNIX.SYSV386", right??
This was NOT posted to newsgroup "comp.unix.any_intel_product", right??
The original poster had problems with SCO-UNIX password generator, not
with a password generator running under MS-C6.0 in tiny-mode, right??

Martin was referring to a "time" syscall argument mismatch under SCO-UNIX.
I pointed out, that it really makes no difference for the argument value itself.
I did NOT say this is a general rule-of-thumb for all kinds of cpus
and all kinds of compilers?!?!

>Before you jump on someone elses case, be sure you know what
>you are talking about.

Before you answer in a newsgroup make sure you realise what that newsgroup
is about.

>Conor P. Cahill            (703)430-9247        Virtual Technologies, Inc.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------
L. Hirschbiegel, AEG - A84, Frankfurt (Germany) 
email: unido!aega84!lh     tel: -49-69-66414316  
-----------------------------------------------