>> Would anyone *object* to enabling the gcc hack for detecting invalid
>> return types from main, and returning 0 automatically if [it trips]?

> If this is an added warning, then I'm actually all for it.  I'd even
> suggest returning NON-zero to make the error even more glaringly
> obvious.

Why just return nonzero?  Why not call abort()?  I had a program (a
much-hacked-upon emacs) that returned a random value, usually nonzero,
from main for _years_ before I noticed.  The only symptom was that
SunOS crontab(1) would silently refuse to install my modified crontabs,
and I had no idea why that was happening.  Only when I used it with
NetBSD's crontab(1) did I notice, because it _does_ print a complaint
explaining why it's not installing the new crontab.

					der Mouse

			    mouse@collatz.mcrcim.mcgill.edu