Thread: writing backwards?

Originally Posted by Overworked_PhD

Technically it's undefined behavior. I can prove this by citing the bad line of code and the corresponding ANSI/ISO C passage.

As it's written, or making the change suggested by the comments?

Originally Posted by tabstop

As it's written, or making the change suggested by the comments?

The original code, as it was presented, is technically undefined behavior. Now let's all wait for lasertard, I might laserlight to recite the corresponding passage.

Originally Posted by Overworked_PhD

The original code, as it was presented, is technically undefined behavior. Now let's all wait for lasertard, I might laserlight to recite the corresponding passage.

Whether or not to wait for LL is up to you naturally, but I'll go out on a limb and say I don't believe you. For reference, the code I'm looking at is

Code:

#include <stdio.h> /*why not just use stdlib.h? */

int
main ()
{
  printf ("Hello \n World!\n");
  return 1;
}

Originally Posted by tabstop

Whether or not to wait for LL is up to you naturally, but I'll go out on a limb and say I don't believe you. For reference, the code I'm looking at is

Code:

#include <stdio.h> /*why not just use stdlib.h? */

int
main ()
{
  printf ("Hello \n World!\n");
  return 1;
}

This line

Code:

int
main ()

should either be

Code:

int
main (void)

or

Code:

int
main (int argc, char **argv)

Originally Posted by Overworked_PhD

This line

Code:

int
main ()

should either be

Code:

int
main (void)

or

Code:

int
main (int argc, char **argv)

The original is of course perfectly acceptable: 6.7.5.3, paragraph 14, says that

An identifier list declares only the identifiers of the parameters of the function. An empty
list in a function declarator that is part of a definition of that function specifies that the
function has no parameters.

And naturally 5.1.2.2.1 does not claim that the definition of int main must look exactly as given on the page, only that it be consistent with the definition.