Xref: utzoo comp.unix.sysv386:8406 comp.lang.c:39583
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: time(0L) - history of a misconception
Message-ID: <16266@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 24 May 91 22:56:08 GMT
References: <381@tmcsys.UUCP> <4188@polari.UUCP> <384@tmcsys.UUCP>
Followup-To: comp.unix.sysv386
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 16

In article <384@tmcsys.UUCP> lothar@tmcsys.UUCP (L. Hirschbiegel) writes:
>At least in my opinion.

But the original question clearly indicated an understanding that this
was a portability issue, and it was YOU who decided to turn it into a
386-specific issue and claim that the difference between correct
portable practice and 386-dependent coding "doesn't matter".  It did
matter to the original purpose of the question.  It should also matter
even if you are at the moment programming with the expectation that
the program will run only on a 386, because there is no guarantee that
the non-portable practice will continue to "work" even using future
releases of the "same" C compiler on the "same" hardware platform.
Thus, it would be much wiser to code this properly in the first place,
especially given that it is easy to do so.

In MY opinion, you deserved to be flamed, on several counts.