From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Sep  4 03:20:54 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id DAA05117
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 03:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA05112
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 03:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.12/8.6.9) id UAA28500; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 20:13:39 +1000
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 20:13:39 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199609041013.UAA28500@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: dubois@primate.wisc.edu, zach@blizzard.gaffaneys.com
Subject: Re: void main
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, kpneal@pobox.com
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>> Um, so what exactly is wrong with void main, other than that you don't
>> happen to like it?
>
>Strictly speaking, there are exactly two correct versions of main():
>
>int main(void);
>
>and
>
>int main(int argc, char *argv[]);

Actually, there are an infinite number.  In a freestanding environment,
main() is an ordinary function.  BSD4.4Lite uses:

void main(void *framep);

>It is also questionable to gratuitously use undefined behavior (wrt
>the ISO C standard) when a 100% correct version costs nothing.

True.

Bruce