Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Computer architects leaving Intel...
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2024 17:52:33 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <867cbllkby.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <2024Aug30.161204@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <memo.20240830164247.19028y@jgd.cix.co.uk> <vasruo$id3b$1@dont-email.me> <2024Aug30.195831@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vat5ap$jthk$2@dont-email.me> <vaunhb$vckc$1@dont-email.me> <vautmu$vr5r$1@dont-email.me> <2024Aug31.170347@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vavpnh$13tj0$2@dont-email.me> <vb2hir$1ju7q$1@dont-email.me> <jwv34mgo7sz.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org> <2024Sep5.151959@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <868qw3m3iu.fsf@linuxsc.com> <e75b789245b52c2bf56cbf2ad428fa25@www.novabbs.org> <86v7z6lv3p.fsf@linuxsc.com> <d07031d1886e22ac33196eb981d9c825@www.novabbs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2024 02:52:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2550a8cb929efdfde26bde1f2c6c70c6";
	logging-data="2237343"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/7ztL5I4r0TcB8vc003x0nsy0R+gPbtsE="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DriVPGFjxjbfn5AYpVzWMBnaYSQ=
	sha1:noZQ/SdliuR8Lv7TepOVMVfxKB0=

mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) writes:

> On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 2:47:38 +0000, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 23:45:45 +0000, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>
>>> Another issue is that main() may not have the 3 defined arguments
>>> and the containing environment is not supposed to complain when
>>> argc, arv, and envp are unused or even unnamed as arguments.
>>
>> The usual "Hello, World" program defines main() either with no
>> arguments
>>
>>     int
>>     main(){
>>         ...
>>     }
>>
>> or with two arguments
>>
>>     int
>>     main( int argc, char *argv[] ){
>>         ...
>>     }
>>
>> and in both cases main() has defined behavior and does not
>> violate the strictures of strictly conforming programs.
>
> The Linux environment (crt0) calls main with 3 arguments.
>
> Are you arguing that a program can be strictly conforming and
> not be type safe at its call/return interfaces ??

Note by the way that the C standard doesn't make any guarantees
about how a strictly conforming program will run under any given
implementation.  All the standard does say is that a conforming
implementation shall accept any strictly conforming program (with
slightly different rules for conforming hosted implementations as
compared to conforming freestanding implementations).