Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Whaddaya think?
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 09:50:45 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <v4u2kl$1rslf$2@dont-email.me>
References: <666ded36$0$958$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
 <20240616015649.000051a0@yahoo.com> <v4lm16$3s87h$4@dont-email.me>
 <v4lmso$3sl7n$1@dont-email.me> <v4lr0m$3tbpj$1@dont-email.me>
 <8734pd4g3s.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <v4ltuj$3trj2$1@dont-email.me>
 <87y17530a0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <v4mb92$3ak$1@dont-email.me>
 <87tths39yy.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <v4oi9f$gnf3$1@dont-email.me>
 <877ceo2iqq.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <v4onrg$hmc2$1@dont-email.me>
 <87plsf17q1.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <87plsdy9aj.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 09:50:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="496e798c2f4d7717891a7779c6d418c6";
	logging-data="1962671"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX199LI9y/hPl6Ao2NyRnChU/lM/MhAt/FMs="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:myh9GO16ixkEEl9TqmxWr8OgzpE=
In-Reply-To: <87plsdy9aj.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 2791

On 19/06/2024 04:07, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
> [...]
>> That's fine.  A return statement or exit() call is unnecessary
>> in main() due to a special-case rule that was added in 1999 for
>> compatibility with C++.  I don't particularly like that rule myself.
>> I choose to omit the return statement in small programs, but if
>> you want to add the "return 0;", I have absolutely no objection.
>> (I used to do that myself.)  It even makes your code more portable
>> to old compilers that support C90.  (tcc claims to support C99,
>> but it has a bug in this area.)
> 
> A minor point: The latest unreleased version of tcc appears to fix this
> bug.  In tcc 0.9.27, falling off the end of main (defined as "int
> main(void)") returns some random status.  In the latest version, it
> returns 0, based on a quick experiment and a cursory examination of the
> generated object code.  (tcc doesn't have an option to generate an
> assembly listing; I used "tcc -c" followed by "objdump -d".)
> 

Godbolt has support for tcc, which might be convenient if you want to 
look at its output.

<https://godbolt.org/z/5hK7PbGbj>