From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28289 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2003 18:36:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 28252 invoked by uid 71); 30 Apr 2003 18:36:01 -0000 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030430183601.28251.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Falk Hueffner Subject: Re: c++/10569: use typedef type as return from main yields warning Reply-To: Falk Hueffner X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg01468.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/10569; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Falk Hueffner To: bangerth@dealii.org Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, wxy@kivera.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/10569: use typedef type as return from main yields warning Date: 30 Apr 2003 20:26:07 +0200 bangerth@dealii.org writes: > Old Synopsis: use typedef type as return from main > New Synopsis: use typedef type as return from main yields warning > > State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed > State-Changed-By: bangerth > State-Changed-When: Wed Apr 30 18:02:19 2003 > State-Changed-Why: > Confirmed with present 3.4. The standard says in 3.6.1.2: > > An implementation shall not predefine the main function. This func- > tion shall not be overloaded. It shall have a return type of type > int,... > I can't say whether this rules out having a typedef to > int instead. I think the answer is: don't do it, there's > no good reason for such bogosity. There's something weird going on, though. For me, it fails with *error* when turning on -Wall, but not when additionally giving -pedantic: falk@juist:/tmp% g++ --version g++ (GCC) 3.4 20030423 (experimental) falk@juist:/tmp% g++ -O2 test.cc falk@juist:/tmp% g++ -O2 -Wall test.cc test.cc:2: error: return type for `main' changed to `int' falk@juist:/tmp% g++ -O2 -Wall -pedantic test.cc test.cc:2: warning: return type for `main' changed to `int' Adding -Wall shouldn't make any program fail, I think. -- Falk