time(0L): the final chapter (was Re: time(0L)... - history of a misconception (was Re: SCO password generator)

[Roger Cornelius]

>From article <1991May24.044751.5933 at virtech.uucp>, by cpcahil at virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill):
> lothar at tmcsys.UUCP (L. Hirschbiegel) writes:
> 
>>This was posted to newsgroup "comp.UNIX.SYSV386", right??
> 
> NO.  It was cross-posted to comp.unix.sysv386 AND comp.lang.c

No, the original article, as well as my followup (I posted the code
everyone has been arguing about) were posted only to comp.unix.sysv386.
Some later follow-upper must have done the cross-posting.  Here are
the headers from my post:

Subject: Re: SCO password generator
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
References: <1991May14.040042.15199 at jpradley.jpr.com>

Regardless, of where it was posted, I think everybody now knows that
time(0L) != time((long*)0).  I'm sure I do.  For those interested,
I've included a patch below :-).  Hopefully this will end this thread.

Roger

--- cut here ---

*** a1.c	Sat May 25 16:29:31 1991
--- a2.c	Sat May 25 16:29:58 1991
***************
*** 11,17 ****
  {
  	char word[MAX], hyword[2*MAX];
! 	long seed = time(0L);
  
  	set_auth_parameters(ac,av);
--- 11,17 ----
  {
  	char word[MAX], hyword[2*MAX];
! 	long seed = time((long*)0);
  
  	set_auth_parameters(ac,av);
--- cut here ---

--
Roger Cornelius          rac at sherpa.UUCP         uunet!sherpa!rac