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>