Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!raven.alaska.edu!milton!sumax!polari!rwing!seaeast!sunbrk!Usenet
From: der.Mouse@sunbrk.FidoNet.Org (der Mouse)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: time(0L) - history of a misconception (was Re: SCO password generat
Message-ID: <675397058.19@sunbrk.FidoNet>
Date: 25 May 91 18:05:19 GMT
Sender: Usenet@sunbrk.FidoNet.Org
Lines: 25


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

It was *also* posted to comp.lang.c.

> 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?!?!

Then you should have removed comp.lang.c from the Newsgroups: line
before posting.

					der Mouse

			old: mcgill-vision!mouse
			new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu

 * Origin: Seaeast - Fidonet<->Usenet Gateway - sunbrk (1:343/15.0)