Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/05/17/13:54:46
Andrew Crabtree wrote:
>
> Not that quoting from the standard shouldn't be enough to convince
> people that "void main ..." in non-ansi compliant, here is the output
> from a recent gcc snapshot
I also like referring people to "comp.lang.c Frequently Asked Questions"
at <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>. It's about as official
as you can get, short of reading the actual ANSI standard, and it even
includes references so you can do just that. It makes for some
enlightening reading.
> ptest.c has
>
> void main(){}
>
> compiled with gcc -pedantic
>
> ptest.c: In function `main':
> ptest.c:1: warning: return type of `main' is not `int'
>
> It does still allow you to just type "main" and have it default to int
> without issuing a warning if only -pedantic is specified.
I dislike this sort of thing, because it still seems like you're playing
games with the compiler to save four characters worth of typing. If you
program as much as I do, those extra four characters aren't going to
contribute significantly to the onset of carpal tunnel syndrome. ;) I
also think that you should explicitly declare the void arglist. That's
another four to six characters, depending on your coding style. In
fifty-thousand line programs, does it _really_ matter?
int main( void )
int main( int, char ** )
Those are the only two ANSI-compliant ways to declare main(). Period.
Even in C++. Those who think otherwise should pull their noses out of
the sky and try reading the standards.
hth!
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| John M. Aldrich, aka Fighteer I | mailto:fighteer AT cs DOT com |
| Descent 2: The Infinite Abyss - The greatest Internet game of all |
| time just got better! This time, you're going all the way down...|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
- Raw text -