cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/nologin nologin.c

[Paul Richards]

On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 10:43:56AM +0000, Nik Clayton wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 11:11:07PM +0000, Robert Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Maxime Henrion wrote:
> > > I bet there is a reason behind this, but I'm totally puzzled at why you
> > > would do such a thing.  It was much prettier and more "C" before.  Could
> > > you shed some light on this please? 
> > 
> > I ran into exactly the same problem I assume Xin Li is now running into
> > just a few days ago: gcc warns if argc and argv are unused in the main() 
> > definition if they aren't referenced when running at higher WARNS levels. 
> > I would argue this is a bug in gcc, since main() is part of an API calling
> > convention, and it doesn't matter if the arguments are unused by the
> > function -- they are still provided by the caller.  But then, I'm not a C
> > expert, so maybe this opinion is the result of poor breeding? :-) 
> 
> What's wrong with (the perfectly legal):
> 
>    int
>    main(void)
>    {
>    ...
>    }
> 
> or does gcc complain about that too?

No it doesn't and it seems to me to be more correct than using a gcc macro.


-- 
Paul Richards