From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <200104241803.TAA21877@localhost.localdomain>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] the declaration of main()
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 24 Apr 2001 11:32:07 BST."
             <20010424102506.0481119AA6@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Steve Kilbane <steve@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:03:25 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8e46d3bc-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> gwyn@arl.army.mil wrote:
> > forsyth@vitanuova.com wrote:
> > > it's unfortunately more error prone than void/exit.  for instance, it was
> > > common to forget fflush() in the presence of setbuf/setvbuf in main for an auto buffer
> > > and worse, that sometimes `worked' (until ported).
> >
> > I don't understand what you're talking about.
>
> consider:
>
> 	#include <stdio.h>
> 	int main(void)
> 	{
> 		char buf[100];
> 		setvbuf(stdout, buf, _IOFBF, sizeof(buf));
> 		printf("hello, world\n");
> 		return 0;
> 	}

Hold on. That's not a justification for the type of main().
It's Just Plain Bad. Saying that you wouldn't have a problem
if you were forced to exit() instead is a bogus argument, because
things would still go wrong if you forgot to call exit() (so you're
exchanging one programming error for another), or if you had the
buffer in a deeper scope, but called exit() as required.

steve