Re: void main (no, not a long one)

[Michael T. Babcock]

I don't see how "If there is ever a compiler dumb enough to break void main(), I
will
happily advise everyone to use a different compiler" engenders any trust in
someone's ability to write C code.

Qmail is well written, sure.  But void main() is and always has been wrong on 99%
of platforms and adding "return 0;" to the end of the function will shut up GCC
as well.  That said ...

Dave Sill wrote:

> >Incidentally, is there a discussion in the past that I've missed about 'void
> >main' declarations? :-)
>
> Yes. A quick search of the archives for "void main" yields:
>
> http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1996/12/msg01898.html