Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!emory!wa4mei!holos0!lbr
From: lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: time(0L) - history of a misconception
Message-ID: <1991May24.145800.22500@holos0.uucp>
Date: 24 May 91 14:58:00 GMT
References: <381@tmcsys.UUCP> <1991May22.190908.5311@virtech.uucp> <383@tmcsys.UUCP>
Organization: Holos Software, Inc., Atlanta, GA
Lines: 25

In article <383@tmcsys.UUCP> lothar@tmcsys.UUCP (L. Hirschbiegel) writes:

>This was posted to newsgroup "comp.UNIX.SYSV386", right??

>Martin was referring to a "time" syscall argument mismatch under SCO-UNIX.
>I did NOT say this is a general rule-of-thumb for all kinds of cpus
>and all kinds of compilers?!?!

Well, you really should have said "Though it's poor programming practice,
it makes no difference on the 30386."  If your point was that such-and-such
couldn't be the source of certain anamolous behavior, you could have been
clearer.  If your point was that this was acceptable coding practice,
I strongly disagree.

Good programmers distinguish between things that work because they're
done correctly and things that work in spite of being done incorrectly.
Knowlingly to exploit such things as
	sizeof(int) == sizeof(long)  == sizeof(long *)
with the smug idea that the code will never run on any other machine
is shortsighted.
-- 
Len Reed
Holos Software, Inc.
Voice: (404) 496-1358
UUCP: ...!gatech!holos0!lbr