Xref: utzoo comp.unix.sysv386:8459 comp.lang.c:39631
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,comp.lang.c
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!geac!censor!comspec!scocan!david
From: david@sco.COM (David Fiander)
Subject: Re: time(0L) - history of a misconception (was Re: SCO password generator)
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.
Date: Mon, 27 May 1991 13:47:36 GMT
Message-ID: <1991May27.134736.6450@sco.COM>
References: <381@tmcsys.UUCP> <1991May22.130713.25852@sco.COM> <1991May24.151350.22705@holos0.uucp>
Sender: news@sco.COM (News administration)

In article <1991May24.151350.22705@holos0.uucp> lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) writes:
>
>You're certainly right that a NULL that produced a virtual memory fault
>upon any use would be better than a virtual zero address.  But it's not
>the "compiler people" who would have to agree to this.  Far too much
>existing code would be broken by a move to this, I'm afraid.

No, all I have to do is convince the compiler people.  They don't
particularly care if somebody else's broken code breaks; just ask anybody
that has worked on an optimizer.  Most of the bugs reported against
HCR-PCO (the Portable Code Optimizer) turned out to be bugs in the
application source which worked until an agressive optimizer hacked the
code into something else.