Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 11:57:06 +0000 From: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk> To: Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/nologin nologin.c Message-ID: <20050106115705.GO16316@myrddin.originative.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20050106104356.GB52159@clan.nothing-going-on.org> References: <20050104202213.GC63028@elvis.mu.org> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1050104230945.45311j-100000@fledge.watson.org> <20050106104356.GB52159@clan.nothing-going-on.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 10:43:56AM +0000, Nik Clayton wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 11:11:07PM +0000, Robert Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Maxime Henrion wrote:
> > > I bet there is a reason behind this, but I'm totally puzzled at why you
> > > would do such a thing. It was much prettier and more "C" before. Could
> > > you shed some light on this please?
> >
> > I ran into exactly the same problem I assume Xin Li is now running into
> > just a few days ago: gcc warns if argc and argv are unused in the main()
> > definition if they aren't referenced when running at higher WARNS levels.
> > I would argue this is a bug in gcc, since main() is part of an API calling
> > convention, and it doesn't matter if the arguments are unused by the
> > function -- they are still provided by the caller. But then, I'm not a C
> > expert, so maybe this opinion is the result of poor breeding? :-)
>
> What's wrong with (the perfectly legal):
>
> int
> main(void)
> {
> ...
> }
>
> or does gcc complain about that too?
No it doesn't and it seems to me to be more correct than using a gcc macro.
--
Paul Richards
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050106115705.GO16316>