Why do people still use main() or main(void)?

If the standard today is to write : int main(void) or int main(int argc, char *argv[]). Return 0 is implied under the C99 standard so some people ommit it but it's supposed to be good programming to include it. Maybe ommitting the return 0; reduces program size and speeds up the execution of the program, although the speed up is obviously negligable.

So why do people continue to use main() and main(void)? without int

If I started a program with main() and left out the return 0; it'll work okay right? and i won't run into any problems under the C99 environment?

There's an FAQ entry on this :

http://faq.cprogramming.com/cgi-bin/...&id=1043284376

And main always returns an int. Always. Therefore, you always put in the return 0.

I already read that. Main returning an int doesn't mean i need to write int main() right?

And a lot of people leave out return 0; unless they're compinling under the C89 environment which requires it to be there.

>If I started a program with main() and left out the return 0; it'll work okay right?
Only under C99. Anything earlier is undefined behavior. So it's probably wiser to always return something explicitly.

>So why do people continue to use main() and main(void)? without int
Because they don't know better and/or haven't been burned by such things in the past.

> Return 0 is implied under the C99 standard so some people ommit it
As you say, it's good practice to say what you mean.

IMO, the standards committees made main() special in this way (no other int returning function implies return 0) as a sop to all the void main programmers to enable them to get their programs up to standard by only changing one word.

I also find it ironic that for the past 20 years the standards committees have been going out of their way to remove implicit behaviour, and now they're adding some other implicit behaviour.

> Maybe ommitting the return 0; reduces program size and speeds up the execution of the program
Well the only thing I see being saved is 10 characters of source code.
The performance "gain" of omitting one instruction which happens only once in the life of a program is truly astonishing compared to the risk of undefined behaviour, and all the work the program has to do to get to that point.

> If I started a program with main() and left out the return 0; it'll work okay right?
Only if you're sure of your environment.
Personally, I go with a style which works everywhere regardless of compiler or standards committee fudges and say that main returns int, and there is an explicit return 0; at the end. Works every time, and does exactly what it says on the tin.

Then I can concentrate on the vastness of what the program is actually all about rather than worrying about some minor bit of triviality which can only cause grief by trying to second-guess what the compiler may or may not allow.

Just looking at your avatar animation, I would have NEVER guessed you weren't a fan of void main() !! :D :D :D

The only standardized version of main() that works for sure on all compilers, over C and C++, is supposed to be:

Code:

---

int main(int argc, char *argv[]);

---

From my understand that C++ doesn't support void as the argument type, and C99 doesn't support empty args (since they mean different things in C and C++).

C++ does allow "void" as the argument type, it's just discouraged. (I'm not sure if it's deprecated or not.)

Some functions return an integer like int main( ) and some of them return void ( I mean nothing) what does it mean when it returns an integer and something like void and what are the arguments of the function?


Please reply!

http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/c/lesson4.html

Having a function that returns an int means that the function provides an integer for the calling function to read. A return of void means that the calling function is not to expect a return of any variable.

Code:

---

int add(int x, int y)
{
        return (x + y);
}

---

The above function takes in two integers, and returns one back.

In this case, nothing is explicitly returned:

Code:

---

void printerror(char *szError)
{
        fprintf(stderr,"The following error has occurred: %s\n",szError);
}

---

In the special case of main(), I wrote a post on this with regard to the x86 processor and had an int will be returned anyway even if you mark it as returning void. This actually applies to all void functions, because the method of "returning" a variable is sort of ambiguous and is really meaning that a variable will be placed in some known location so that the calling function can locate it. This location may be overwritten in the case of a void function, and appear to explicitly return such a value. Overall, this is an advanced topic, that beginners should not bother with. All they should know is that they should declare main() to return an int, and accept the proper parameters.

Quote:

---

because the method of "returning" a variable is sort of ambiguous and is really meaning that a variable will be placed in some known location so that the calling function can locate it.

---

It's not ambiguous at all and is quite simple to follow for x86 architecture.

integers - returned in EAX
floats/doubles - returned in ST(0)

This should be consistent across all compilers in order to be compatible with x86. If this system was not followed then it would be a nightmare to code low-level assembly since you would never know which register your quantity was returned in.

Sorry, I was deviating from discussing the x86 architecture a little bit. :)

Unless you know the system you are dealing with, you cannot be sure how return values will be returned. That is all I was getting at about ambiguity.

For x86, yes, EAX is the main register to check for return values. This is the post I wrote on this subject that I was referring to. Obviously the programs I wrote there could well do with an update, but please keep in mind they are simply proof-of-concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robatino

C++ does allow "void" as the argument type, it's just discouraged. (I'm not sure if it's deprecated or not.)

---

It is simply redundant in C++.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher2222

Maybe ommitting the return 0; reduces program size and speeds up the execution of the program

---

Are you serious?

Quote:

---

So why do people continue to use main() and main(void)? without int

---

If you don't need argc and argv?

Quote:

---

If I started a program with main() and left out the return 0; it'll work okay right? and i won't run into any problems under the C99 environment?

---

In C99, it's okay. But assuming that your environment is C99 probably isn't a good assumption just yet.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So why do people continue to use main() and main(void)? without int

---

If you don't need argc and argv?

---

Are you serious?

What do argc, and argv have to do with main's return type?

brewbuck is referring to main()'s parameters. I think the OP is referring to both main()'s return type and parameters, but in that case, I think the question was related to the return type being implicitly declared as int.

Quote:

---

So why do people continue to use main() and main(void)? without int

---

Mostly out of laziness/ignorance, but that doesn't mean there isn't a valid reason for not using int main(void). For example, programming for embedded systems may often include "non-standard" code, such as void main(void).

As for the implicit return of 0, I personally always make use of this unless I intend on returning a specific result. This is beneficial, because in the future, if the standards committee decides that main will now return X by default instead of 0, or will return X and perform some clean-up code, then you no longer have to worry about correcting all the "return 0"'s you hard-coded into your source in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by @nthony

As for the implicit return of 0, I personally always make use of this unless I intend on returning a specific result. This is beneficial, because in the future, if the standards committee decides that main will now return X by default instead of 0, or will return X and perform some clean-up code, then you no longer have to worry about correcting all the "return 0"'s you hard-coded into your source in the past.

---

this is highly unlikely due to this functioning in scripts:

Code:

---

app
if(!ret_val) echo error!

---

it would instantly invalidate every C program and most scripts, making a lot of work for people to recode their programs and scripts, making a lot of programmers and scripters unhappy.