Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!caip!clyde!cuae2!ltuxa!we53!sw013b!dj3b1!killer!ndmce!pollux!bobkat!pedz
From: pedz@bobkat.UUCP (Pedz Thing)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: functions that don't return
Message-ID: <147@bobkat.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-Oct-86 11:50:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: bobkat.147
Posted: Fri Oct  3 11:50:59 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 6-Oct-86 18:37:24 EDT
References: <584@hadron.UUCP> <86900070@haddock> <1216@bunker.UUCP>
Reply-To: pedz@bobkat.UUCP (Pedz Thing)
Organization: Digital Lynx; Dallas, TX
Lines: 17

In article <1216@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:
>In article <86900070@haddock> karl@haddock writes:
>>There are three possible models for the crt0/main interface:  main() could be
>>int ("exit(main())"), void ("main(); exit(0)"), or dead ("main(); HALT").

I think it should be the second choice, main(); exit(0);.  The reason
is two fold.  First, unless a program specifically bombs off, it
should exit with a happy status.  Falling off the bottom of main I
would not consider to be doing anything specific yet the return (and
exit) value will be random.  Second, with a random exit status, it
makes the program much less usefull.  Make(1) will sometimes work and
sometimes fail, etc.
-- 
Perry Smith
ctvax ---\
megamax --- bobkat!pedz
pollux---/