der Mouse wrote:

> >> 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()?

Since cc1 would have to detect this bug at compile-time anyway, it
might as well produce a compile-time error (not a warning). A good
compiler should not try to guess what the programmer could have
ment, when he wrote erroneous code; it should *reject* such
code.


Regards,
Waldi