NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/lang/c/20075

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-22 | 1.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!utgpu!attcan!telly!druid!darcy
From: [e-mail] (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: should main be prototyped?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 93 12:37:50 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: D'Arcy Cain Consulting
Lines: 24

[e-mail] (Steve Clamage) writes:
>[e-mail] (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:
>>  int main(void); /* prototype main   -   1/2 :-) */
>>  int main(void)
>>  {
>The prototype declaration for main() in your example has no effect
>whatever.  If you place a prototype declaration at the top of a file
>or in a header, it allows a function to call the prototyped function
>from a point where the function definition is not visible.  Placing
>the prototype declaration on the line immediately before the function
>definition is pointless, IMHO, and not a justifiable programming practice.

You're right.  The only reason I do it is to keep Gnu quiet when I use
the -Wmissing-prototypes.  It would be nice if Gnu recognized that main()
was a special case and didn't issue the warning for that case or better
yet checked that the definition of main followed one of the two possible
forms form main.  Preventing one warning in an otherwise warning free
compile is the justification in my case.

--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain ([e-mail])  |
D'Arcy Cain Consulting              |   There's no government
Toronto, Ontario, Canada            |   like no government!
[phone]          DoD#0082   |