David Murn writes:
>
> On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Alistair Riddoch wrote:
>
> > but as David pointed out, this is not efficient code, so I replaced it with
> > his example, as shown above
>
> I never really thought about it being efficient as such, I was more
> pointing out the issue that in some instances, the \n isn't at the end of
> the line. I've had some instances where the password that login.c has
> read, is something like "password\nls\n". You only want the 'password'
> bit, since the buffer obviously missed the 'ls\n' which is the next
> command. My code simply goes for the first \n and replaces that.
>
> If it's more efficient, then it's almost by accident :)
Either way, its still better.
>
> > - char lbuf[UT_NAMESIZE], pbuf[20], salt[3];
> > + char lbuf[UT_NAMESIZE], * pbuf, salt[3];
> > char * tty_name;
> > int n;
>
> Is 'n' still needed?
>
Probably not.
Al
