Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mimsy!eneevax!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: impossible problem for find(1)?
Message-ID: <5824@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 3-May-87 01:02:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.5824
Posted: Sun May  3 01:02:06 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 3-May-87 18:46:45 EDT
References: <2645@phri.UUCP> <6454@mimsy.UUCP> <5797@brl-smoke.ARPA> <5815@brl-smoke.ARPA> <7215@orchid.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 11

In article <7215@orchid.UUCP> rbutterworth@orchid.UUCP writes:
-In article <5815@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
-> Because it doesn't work.  The main() function then fails to return a value,
-> and lint detects that (or at least it CAN detect that if it's smart enough).
-But if lint smart enough, it should know that main actually fails to return
-at all, which is quite a different thing from returning but failing to return
-a value.

I said what I meant.  I did not say that the main() function returned.
Lint warns about an int-valued function that doesn't return an int value.
main() is an int-valued function.  Why do I have to spell this out?