From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>,
"gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: arsen@aarsen.me
Subject: Re: Handling of main() function for freestanding
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2022 18:25:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <44594c0c-db9d-459a-7ecc-29c4f5544b28@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH6eHdRr2uYW=Q8BKvhx472LXkT+nCKQg4uYAETNCs+b=YY7GA@mail.gmail.com>
On 9/28/22 16:15, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> As part of implementing a C++23 proposal [1] to massively increase the
> scope of the freestanding C++ standard library some questions came up
> about the special handling of main() that happens for hosted
> environments.
>
> As required by both C++ (all versions) and C (since C99), falling off
> the end of the main() function is not undefined, the compiler is
> required to insert an implicit 'return 0' [2][3]. However, this
> special handling only applies to hosted environments. For freestanding
> the return type or even the existence of main is
> implementation-defined. As a result, GCC gives a -Wreturn-type warning
> for this code with -ffreestanding, but not with -fhosted:
>
> int main() { }
>
> Arsen (CC'd) has been working on the libstdc++ changes for the
> freestanding proposal, and several thousand libstdc++ tests were
> failing when using -ffreestanding, because of the -Wreturn-type
> warnings. He wrote a patch to the compiler [4] to add a new
> -fspecial-main flag which defaults to on for -fhosted, but can be used
> with -ffreestanding to do the implicit 'return 0' (and so disable the
> -Wreturn-type warnings) for freestanding as well. This fixes the
> libstdc++ test FAILs.
>
> However, after discussing this briefly with Jason it occurred to us
> that if the user declares an 'int main()' function, it's a pretty big
> hint that they do want main() to return an int. And so having
> undefined behaviour do to a missing return isn't really doing anybody
> any favours. If you're compiling for freestanding and you *don't* want
> to return a value from main(), then just declare it as void main()
> instead. So now we're wondering if we need -fspecial-main at all, or
> if int main() and int main(int, char**) should always be "special",
> even for freestanding. So Arsen wrote a patch to do that too [5].
>
> The argument against making 'int main()' imply 'special main' is that
> in a freestanding environment, a function called 'int main()' might be
> just a normal function, not the program's entry point. And in that
> case, maybe you really do want -Wreturn-type warnings. I don't know
> how realistic that is.
>
> So the question is, should Arsen continue with his -fspecial-main
> patch, and propose it along with the libstdc++ changes, or should gcc
> change to always make 'int main()' "special" even for freestanding?
> void main() and long main() and other signatures would still be
> allowed for freestanding, and would not have the implicit 'return 0'.
I would rather not add a flag. No well-defined freestanding program is
affected by implicit return 0 from main, it should always be enabled.
> I have no horse in this race, so if the maintainers of bare metal
> ports think int main() should not be special for -ffreestanding, so be
> it. I hope the first patch to add -fspecial-main would be acceptable
> in that case, and libstdc++ will use it when testing with
> -ffreestanding.
>
> [1] https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p1642r11.html
> [2] https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.start.main#5.sentence-2
> [3] https://cigix.me/c17#5.1.2.2.3.p1
> [4] https://github.com/ArsenArsen/gcc/commit/7e67edaced33e31a0dd4db4b3dd404c4a8daba59
> [5] https://github.com/ArsenArsen/gcc/commit/c9bf2f9ed6161a38238e9c7f340d2c3bb04fe443
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-04 22:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-28 20:15 Jonathan Wakely
2022-09-29 6:00 ` Richard Biener
2022-09-29 7:12 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-09-29 9:21 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-10-04 22:25 ` Jason Merrill [this message]
2022-10-04 23:28 ` Joel Sherrill
2022-10-07 11:30 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-10-07 13:51 ` Jason Merrill
2022-10-07 13:53 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-10-13 17:03 ` Arsen Arsenović
2022-10-13 17:10 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-10-13 17:26 ` Arsen Arsenović
2022-10-13 17:24 ` Jason Merrill
2022-10-13 20:14 ` Arsen Arsenović
2022-10-13 21:16 ` Jason Merrill
2022-10-14 10:04 ` Arsen Arsenović
2022-10-14 15:17 ` Jason Merrill
2022-10-21 10:33 ` Ping (c,c++): " Arsen Arsenović
2022-10-21 21:02 ` Joseph Myers
2022-10-23 11:54 ` Arsen Arsenović
2022-10-24 13:46 ` Jason Merrill
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=44594c0c-db9d-459a-7ecc-29c4f5544b28@redhat.com \
--to=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=arsen@aarsen.me \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jwakely.gcc@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).