Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: entry at other than main (was: want to know)
Message-ID: <14619@bfmny0.UUCP>
Date: 2 Sep 89 04:42:11 GMT
References: <182@sunquest.UUCP> <14269@haddock.ima.isc.com> <1496@l.cc.purdue.edu> <1701@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <2538@trantor.harris-atd.com> <10760@smoke.BRL.MIL> <2563@trantor.harris-atd.com> <10781@smoke.BRL.MIL> <2634@trantor.harris-atd.com> <14506@haddock.ima.isc.co
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Organization: ^
Lines: 16
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Keywords:

Here's the thing about C standardizing on main() as an entry point.
While the occasional need to circumvent this is legitimate, the
situations where this need arises are NOT portable.  And most of the
sophisticated C implementations or hosting environments I've encountered
do provide you with a (non-portable) way of tweaking your entry point if
you understand the tools well enough.  (Either you can edit and
re-assemble the front end startup code that calls main(), for example,
or the linker has options to rename symbols or designate alternate
entry points... or something else.)

So people with a real need for this can generally get it done.  Meanwhile
it's quite useful to have a well defined standard entry point for the
remaining huge majority of normal cases.
-- 
Annex Canada now!  We need the room,	\)	Tom Neff
    and who's going to stop us.		(\	tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET