From -7759657128315611519 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,314ebdf2ff957e27 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-11 11:49:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!news2.epix.net!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!kibo.news.demon.net!mutlu.news.demon.net!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!devnull From: do-not-spam-ben.hutchings@businesswebsoftware.com (Ben Hutchings) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Why int main()? Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:49:04 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 28 Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++) Message-ID: References: X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1050086944 29325 10.0.0.1 (11 Apr 2003 18:49:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:49:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Received: from mulga.cs.mu.oz.au ([128.250.1.22]) by news.demon.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1943aB-0007ch-00 for mail2news@news.news.demon.net; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:49:03 +0000 X-Received: by mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU id EAA21323; Sat, 12 Apr 2003 04:49:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Path: comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-Delivered-To: std-c++@ucar.edu X-Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ X-Reply-To: Ben Hutchings X-Orig-NNTP-Posting-Host: gold.businesswebsoftware.com (195.74.108.82) X-Orig-X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1050058232 12101458 195.74.108.82 (16 [70929]) X-User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Win32) X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT version=2.41 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.std.c++:18730 In article , "Huw Ford" wrote: > Why was main defined as returning int? > A lot of my work has been with embedded devices where the program never > returns from main. Then you're probably working with freestanding implementations, where the entry point is implementation-defined, so it might not be called main and might not be expected to return int. (Section 3.6.1 paragraph 1.) > A lot of compilers will accept "void main()" so why must main return an > int? In most environments, a terminating process returns some kind of status value indicating at least success or failure. Logically main() should return a value that becomes this status value. At least some C compilers treat main() just like any other function, and their startup code expects it to return an int. This could have been changed in C++, since C++ compilers do have to treat main() specially in some respects, but why change it when a return type of int is logically correct? --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]