Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!milton!sumax!polari!rwing!seaeast!sunbrk!Usenet
From: David.Fiander@sunbrk.FidoNet.Org (David Fiander)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: time(0L) - history of a misconception (was Re: SCO password generat
Message-ID: <675518012.7@sunbrk.FidoNet>
Date: 27 May 91 18:47:36 GMT
Sender: Usenet@sunbrk.FidoNet.Org
Lines: 16


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.

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