No "void main(int argc, char *argv[])" for Visual Studio C++ 6.0?

Hi.

I am making a simple console program that takes in command line arguement using Visual Studio C++ 6.0.

In Turbo C++ 3.0, I can use "void main(int argc, char *argv[])" to takes in arguement, however when I do this in Visual Studio, it gives me an error:
: error C2731: 'main' : function cannot be overloaded
: see declaration of 'main'

May I know how I can do the "void main(int argc, char *argv[])" for Visual Studio C++?

Thanks in advance.

lol lol rflmao lol.............lol!!!!!!........wooo!

don't use void main....ever........

try:
int main(char **argv, int argc)

oh yea...you're gonna get some static for void main.....by just about everyone

Lets see what the C++ standard has to say

3.6.1 Main function
1 A program shall contain a global function called main, which is the designated start of the program. It is
implementationdefined
whether a program in a freestanding environment is required to define a main
function. [Note: in a freestanding environment, startup
and termination is implementationdefined;
startup
contains the execution of constructors for objects of namespace scope with static storage duration; termination
contains the execution of destructors for objects with static storage duration. ]
2 An implementation shall not predefine the main function. This function shall not be overloaded. It shall
have a return type of type int, but otherwise its type is implementationdefined.
All implementations
shall allow both of the following definitions of main:
int main() { /* ... */ }
and
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { /* ... */ }

Don't forget to return something from main now that you're using int main. Returning 0 is the generally accepted sign of success, and returning 1 is a generic error. You can however, return whatever code you want, as the whole idea is to allow the OS to confirm proper execution of your program.

edit: Though from the looks of those errors, ad knowing what VS is like, main may already be defined somewhere. Look around in other files VS created for you when you started this project if using "int main" doesn't fix the problem.

>: error C2731: 'main' : function cannot be overloaded
>: see declaration of 'main'
Are you prototyping main improperly? Aside from returning void that is. People coming from very old style C will run into this error when they try to use a K&R style function declaration with an ISO style function definition. Because C++ never had K&R style functions, the second is parsed as an overload.

Code:

int main();

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
  //...
}

Post your code. I gave my crystal ball away.

Originally Posted by sean_mackrory

Don't forget to return something from main now that you're using int main. Returning 0 is the generally accepted sign of success, and returning 1 is a generic error. You can however, return whatever code you want, as the whole idea is to allow the OS to confirm proper execution of your program.

you don't necessarily need to return anything from main, but I think this is a very good point...

Yes you do. Don't you pay attention to your compiler's warnings? Main always returns something. Therefore, just like with any other function that has a return value, all paths of exeuction must end in something being returned. Otherwise your compiler, and all the people on the C board who actually know what they're talking about, will complain at you.

Quzah.

Pssst quzah this is c++. You don't have to put return 0; in main. Its implicit.

Originally Posted by Section 3.6.1.5

[...]If control reaches the end of main without encountering a return statement, the effect is that of executing
return 0;

Well if you're going to be that way about it. :P

Quzah.

Give him a break. He's engaged. And she knows how to use Linux. Would your mind be on C++ right now?

>Would your mind be on C++ right now?
Um...yes.

The exception that proves the rule...

> You don't have to put return 0; in main. Its implicit.
But only if your C++ compiler is up to the new standard.
Crusty old C++ compilers like those used by the OP may not have an implicit return 0;

Well I am assuming that the OP is using VS 6 since thats in the title