main() in C90/C95

[Ioannis Vranos]

Well we all know K&R2 uses main() and not int main(). Also in K&R2, in
chapter 4.1, there is a definition of a function:

dummy() {}

and it is stated that if the returned type is omitted, int is used.


So I suppose in C90/C95

main() is equivalent to int main() right?


That is, the same stuff with C90/95 int variables where,

x= 7;

means int x= 7;

[santosh]

Re: main() in C90/C95

Ioannis Vranos wrote:

Well we all know K&R2 uses main() and not int main(). Also in K&R2, in
chapter 4.1, there is a definition of a function:
>
dummy() {}
>
and it is stated that if the returned type is omitted, int is used.
>
>
So I suppose in C90/C95
>
main() is equivalent to int main() right?

Yes. This (implicit int return) was removed from C99.

That is, the same stuff with C90/95 int variables where,
>
x= 7;
>
means int x= 7;

[=?UTF-8?q?Harald_van_D=C4=B3k?=]

Re: main() in C90/C95

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:36:48 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:

Harald van Dijk <truedfx@gmail. comwrites:

>On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:18:16 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:

>>I think that pre-ANSI C was more forgiving of declarations with
>>missing types. It was probably the ambiguity of things like "x = 7;",
>>or even just "x;", that led to the rules being tightened a bit.

>>
>Out of curiosity, do you know of any specific implementations that
>accept that?

[...]
>
I can think of a couple of old implementations that would probably
accept it without complaint, but I don't currently have easy access to
them.
>
But gcc 3.4.4 compiles and runs this, and produces the output "x = 42":
>
=== CUT HERE ===
x;
>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
x = 42;
printf("x = %d\n", x);
return 0;
}
=== AND HERE ===

Thank you. I now see it also allows 'x = 42;' (and of course, the original
'x= 7;') at global scope, it's just at function scope that it rejects it.
As you mentioned, a diagnostic is generated for the code, so the
standard's requirements are met.

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: main() in C90/C95

In article <9a631$47c9cedb $541dfcd3$13604 @cache2.tilbu1. nb.home.nl>,
Harald van Dijk <truedfx@gmail. comwrote:
....

>Thank you. I now see it also allows 'x = 42;' (and of course, the original
>'x= 7;') at global scope, it's just at function scope that it rejects it.
>As you mentioned, a diagnostic is generated for the code, so the
>standard's requirements are met.

And thank GOD for that.