However, programs should return 0 on success.There is no standard saying that void main will return 0. It might just return a random value.So, technically, the OS could assume your program failed even when it worked properly.
No, most compiler writers just think that disallowing void main() is stupid.
Why do all the pro-Microsoft people have troll avatars?
Quote from: Josh @ Dreamland on June 01, 2010, 05:48:29 pmNo, most compiler writers just think that disallowing void main() is stupid.Meaning that the program never fails ever
Quote from: RetroX on June 02, 2010, 06:02:39 pmQuote from: Josh @ Dreamland on June 01, 2010, 05:48:29 pmNo, most compiler writers just think that disallowing void main() is stupid.Meaning that the program never fails ever...like if it's in an infinite loop.
retep998: !store recursion "; recursionEnigmaBot: Storedretep998: js: recursion = '!give recursion js:"'joshdreamland: !give recursion js:"EnigmaBot: js:":: "; recursionjoshdreamland: !give recursion js:"EnigmaBot: js:":: "; recursionjoshdreamland: !give recursion js:"EnigmaBot: js:":: "; recursionjoshdreamland: !give recursion js:"EnigmaBot: js:":: "; recursionjoshdreamland: !give recursion js:"EnigmaBot: js:":: "; recursionjoshdreamland: !give recursion js:"EnigmaBot: js:":: "; recursionjoshdreamland: !give recursion js:"EnigmaBot: js:":: "; recursion...
retep998: js: recursionjoshdreamland: !give recursion js:"EnigmaBot: js:":: "; recursionjoshdreamland: !give recursion js:"EnigmaBot: js:":: "; recursionjoshdreamland: !give recursion js:"EnigmaBot: js:":: "; recursionjoshdreamland: !give recursion js:"EnigmaBot: js:":: "; recursion...
Quote from: score_under on June 02, 2010, 06:53:20 pmQuote from: RetroX on June 02, 2010, 06:02:39 pmQuote from: Josh @ Dreamland on June 01, 2010, 05:48:29 pmNo, most compiler writers just think that disallowing void main() is stupid.Meaning that the program never fails ever...like if it's in an infinite loop.that is the programmer's fault and they are an idiot if that happens
Quote from: RetroX on June 02, 2010, 08:15:28 pmQuote from: score_under on June 02, 2010, 06:53:20 pmQuote from: RetroX on June 02, 2010, 06:02:39 pmQuote from: Josh @ Dreamland on June 01, 2010, 05:48:29 pmNo, most compiler writers just think that disallowing void main() is stupid.Meaning that the program never fails ever...like if it's in an infinite loop.that is the programmer's fault and they are an idiot if that happensunless it's intended like many parts of a kernel or a device driver.
Quote from: Rusky on June 03, 2010, 07:59:36 amQuote from: RetroX on June 02, 2010, 08:15:28 pmQuote from: score_under on June 02, 2010, 06:53:20 pmQuote from: RetroX on June 02, 2010, 06:02:39 pmQuote from: Josh @ Dreamland on June 01, 2010, 05:48:29 pmNo, most compiler writers just think that disallowing void main() is stupid.Meaning that the program never fails ever...like if it's in an infinite loop.that is the programmer's fault and they are an idiot if that happensunless it's intended like many parts of a kernel or a device driver.I believe that the definiton of "infinite" implies "never ending"
Quote from: RetroX on June 03, 2010, 02:58:26 pmQuote from: Rusky on June 03, 2010, 07:59:36 amQuote from: RetroX on June 02, 2010, 08:15:28 pmQuote from: score_under on June 02, 2010, 06:53:20 pmQuote from: RetroX on June 02, 2010, 06:02:39 pmQuote from: Josh @ Dreamland on June 01, 2010, 05:48:29 pmNo, most compiler writers just think that disallowing void main() is stupid.Meaning that the program never fails ever...like if it's in an infinite loop.that is the programmer's fault and they are an idiot if that happensunless it's intended like many parts of a kernel or a device driver.I believe that the definiton of "infinite" implies "never ending"the kernel's loop never ends until the computer turns off.
By RetroX's definition, there are no infinite loops, then.