Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!codas!cpsc6a!cpsc6b!crs
From: crs@cpsc6b.cpsc6a.att.com (Chris (Batches? We don't need no steenking batches!) Seaman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: return (0) vs. exit(0) from main().
Message-ID: <441@cpsc6b.cpsc6a.att.com>
Date: 31 Dec 87 18:58:53 GMT
Organization: AT&T (CPSC), Oakland, CA
Lines: 28

I have been following the discussion of the return vs. exit
controversy, and have a couple of observations:

   1) If exit is perferred over return, the why does everyone agree
      that crt0 calls main, and then calls exit?  Whether it checks
      the return value from main is not my question.  The point is
      crt0 assumes that main will return control to it under normal
      circumstances.

   2) I work on an AT&T 3B15, an IBM PC (Turbo C and Microsoft C 5.0),
      and an Amiga 1000 (Manx 3.4a).  All these environments *expect*
      main to return to crt0.  Of course, if you want to return a
      non-zero value to your operating system, you should use exit.
      *But*, if a program exits normally, it should be returning zero,
      and none of the implementations I've seen discussed here would
      prevent that when using return (from main).

   3) On the AT&T 3B15, if I write code that *does not* use return
      from main as the logical end of the function (meaning, when
      all goes well), but uses exit instead, lint complains that I
      am returning a random value to the calling environment.


-- 
Chris Seaman            |    o\  /o
crs@cpsc6a.att.com <or> |      ||         See "Attack of the Killer Smiley"!
..!ihnp4!cpsc6a!crs     |   \vvvvvv/     Coming Soon to a newsgroup near you!
                        |    \____/