Hello, I was wondering, does it make any difference if you write
void foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
}
or
foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
}
What is the difference?? Both ways the function wont return anything,
right? What is the point in writing void? Is it merely a cosmetic feature?
--
Ian Tuomi
Jyväskylä, Finland
GCS d- s+: a--- C++>$ L+>+++$ E- W+ N+ !o>+ w---
!O- !M- t+ !5 !X R+ tv- b++ DI+ !D G e->+++ h!
23  22127 
Ian Tuomi wrote Hello, I was wondering, does it make any difference if you write
void foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
}
or
foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
}
What is the difference?? Both ways the function wont return anything,
right? What is the point in writing void? Is it merely a cosmetic feature?
Absolutely not. If you omit a return type from a function declaration, the
return type defaults to `int', so
foo(int x)
is actually
int foo(int x)
The void type is used as the type returned by functions that generate no
value.
---
user
Ian Tuomi <ia*@co.jyu.fi> wrote: Hello, I was wondering, does it make any difference if you write
void foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
}
or
foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
}
What is the difference?? Both ways the function wont return anything,
right? What is the point in writing void? Is it merely a cosmetic feature?
No, at least with the C89 standard a function with no specified
return value (like your second example) is supposed to return an
integer. You need void to explicitely tell the compiler that the
function isn't returning a value. The new (C99) standard changed
this, but not in the sense that a function without a specified
return value returns nothing (aka void), but making it a syntax
error, so you still need void.
Regards, Jens
--
_ _____ _____
| ||_ _||_ _| Je***********@physik.fu-berlin.de
_ | | | | | |
| |_| | | | | | http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~toerring
\___/ens|_|homs|_|oerring
Ian Tuomi wrote: Hello, I was wondering, does it make any difference if you write
void foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
}
or
foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
}
What is the difference?? Both ways the function wont return anything,
right? What is the point in writing void? Is it merely a cosmetic feature?
--
Ian Tuomi
Jyväskylä, Finland
"Very funny scotty, now beam down my clothes."
GCS d- s+: a--- C++>$ L+>+++$ E- W+ N+ !o>+ w---
!O- !M- t+ !5 !X R+ tv- b++ DI+ !D G e->+++ h!
Ian Tuomi wrote:
foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
}
I'm not entirely sure that this is even a valid function declaration.
If it is, the compiler will assume that foo returns an int.
--
================================================== ======================
Ian Pilcher i.*******@comcast.net
================================================== ======================
On 9/19/2003 12:50 PM, Ian Tuomi wrote: Hello, I was wondering, does it make any difference if you write
void foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
}
or
foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
}
What is the difference??
The first one returns nothing while the second returns an int.
Both ways the function wont return anything, right?
No. If you put a "return 1;" inside both functions, the first one won't compile
whereas the second will compile with just a warning about the return type
defaulting to int.
What is the point in writing void? Is it merely a cosmetic feature?
No. It tells the compiler (and future developers!) that this function must not
return anything, so if someone wrongly adds a return(value) statement or wrongly
assgines a void functions return to a variable, they get a compilation error or
warning.
Ed.
Ian Tuomi <ia*@co.jyu.fi> wrote: Hello, I was wondering, does it make any difference if you write
void foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
}
or
foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
}
What is the difference?? Both ways the function wont return anything,
right? What is the point in writing void? Is it merely a cosmetic feature?
The first example declares a function returning nothing at all, whereas
in the second example the function defaults to return int (at least in
K&R-C and C89). Your compiler will most probably issue a diagnostic if
you fail to supply a return statement in the second example.
Furthermore you need void when you want to declare a generic pointer,
IOW a pointer of which is not known what type of object it points to.
E.g. the malloc function returns a void*.
Regards
Irrwahn
--
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.
"Ian Tuomi" <ia*@co.jyu.fi> wrote in message
news:bk**********@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi... Hello, I was wondering, does it make any difference if you write
void foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
}
or
/* in C99, insert required return type here */
foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
/* insert required return statement here */
}
In C99, this is invalid. A function *must* declare
a return type. In C89, the omission of a return
type from a function declaration causes the return
type to default to 'int'. So in C89 this is also
invalid, since the function is declared to return
type 'int' but does not return a value.
What is the difference??
See above.
Both ways the function wont return anything,
right?
Wrong. What C book(s) are you reading?
What is the point in writing void?
It specifies that a function does not return a value.
This is the *only* way to specify no return value.
Is it merely a cosmetic feature?
Absolutely not.
-Mike
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Mike Wahler wrote: foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
/* insert required return statement here */
}
In C99, this is invalid. A function *must* declare
a return type. In C89, the omission of a return
type from a function declaration causes the return
type to default to 'int'. So in C89 this is also
invalid, since the function is declared to return
type 'int' but does not return a value.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC it's OK to fall through
without returning as long as you don't check the return value.
"Ian Tuomi" <ia*@co.jyu.fi> wrote in message
news:bk**********@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
Well, now you know the language rules after reading
all those posts :)
Anyways...
Just one more "reason". Even if it wasn't so that functions
did default to int it is nice to have void for symmetry and it
makes it easier to write simple parsing tools so they can use
simpler heuristics.
IMO it was a mistake to make functions default to int,
albeit a small one. More people seem to agree as it is now
a deprecated feature.
As mentioned elsethread it is also used to declare generic
pointers. This is perhaps strange (I think so at least). Consider
that a pointer to int can point to objects of type int. You can
in fact have objects of type int so that is ok and intuitive.
When you have a pointer to void you have pointer than can
point to objects of type void. But you cannot have objects
of type void! This is not a big problem though and I find it
an adequate solution over having a separate keyword or
type for this, like gptr_t or something like 'object *p;'.
--
Thomas
"Jarno A Wuolijoki" <jw******@cs.Helsinki.FI> wrote in message
news:Pi**************************************@melk inpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI... On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Mike Wahler wrote:
foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
/* insert required return statement here */
}
In C99, this is invalid. A function *must* declare
a return type. In C89, the omission of a return
type from a function declaration causes the return
type to default to 'int'. So in C89 this is also
invalid, since the function is declared to return
type 'int' but does not return a value.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC it's OK to fall through
without returning as long as you don't check the return value.
But what would be the point? Either you are returning a value your not
checking, or one that has a random--thus useless--value.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Xenos wrote:
"Jarno A Wuolijoki" <jw******@cs.Helsinki.FI> wrote... On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Mike Wahler wrote:
> foo(int x)
> {
> /* insert code here */
> }
In C99, this is invalid. A function *must* declare
a return type. In C89, the omission of a return
type from a function declaration causes the return
type to default to 'int'. So in C89 this is also
invalid, since the function is declared to return
type 'int' but does not return a value.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC it's OK to fall through
without returning as long as you don't check the return value.
Or not even fall through -- you can insert a blank
return;
in the function for the same effect (immediate return to caller,
undefined return value).
But what would be the point? Either you are returning a value your not
checking, or one that has a random--thus useless--value.
int silly_sprintf(char *buffer, const char *fmt, ...)
{
if (buffer == NULL) {
how_many_characters = some_function_of_(input);
return how_many_characters;
}
else {
strcpy(buffer, some_other_function_of_(input);
return;
}
}
The idea being that in *some* cases, maybe you want to return
useful information, and in *some* cases, there's no useful
information to return. Obviously, this is a bad example;
a call to silly_sprintf(non_null, "foo") could return an
integer too. But I'm sure such cases could exist.
In such cases, the Prime Directive of Misplaced Efficiency Tuning
dictates that we use 'return;' in place of 'return 0;', to save
the single "load" instruction. :-)
More practically, in modern C you can even have a function
that returns a structure directly:
struct foo return_a_foo(int should_i)
{
if (should_i)
return (struct foo){0, 1, should_i, "and so on", 42, "infinity"};
else
return;
}
The time saved in not constructing the return value might
really add up, in this case!
HTH,
-Arthur
In <Pi**************************************@melkinpa asi.cs.Helsinki.FI> Jarno A Wuolijoki <jw******@cs.Helsinki.FI> writes: On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Mike Wahler wrote:
> foo(int x)
> {
> /* insert code here */
/* insert required return statement here */
> }
In C99, this is invalid. A function *must* declare
a return type. In C89, the omission of a return
type from a function declaration causes the return
type to default to 'int'. So in C89 this is also
invalid, since the function is declared to return
type 'int' but does not return a value.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC it's OK to fall through
without returning as long as you don't check the return value.
Right. Back in the days of K&R C, when there were no void functions,
some people used the following convention:
int foo() { ... return something; }
for functions that were supposed to return something and
bar() { ... }
for functions that were not supposed to return anything (the equivalent
of void functions in standard C).
But from the language point of view, there is no difference between the
two function definitions: both are defined as taking no parameters and
returning int. To avoid breaking such code, C89 allowed non-void
functions that don't return anything, as long as the caller is not
attempting to use the return value.
Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
"Jarno A Wuolijoki" <jw******@cs.Helsinki.FI> wrote in message
news:Pi**************************************@melk inpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI... On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Mike Wahler wrote:
foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
/* insert required return statement here */
}
In C99, this is invalid. A function *must* declare
a return type. In C89, the omission of a return
type from a function declaration causes the return
type to default to 'int'. So in C89 this is also
invalid, since the function is declared to return
type 'int' but does not return a value.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong,
You're wrong.
but IIRC
Recall from where?
it's OK to fall through
without returning as long as you don't check the return value.
Not true. Where did you hear that? A function *always*
returns at the closing brace ( '}' ), regardless of whether
or not it returns a value. This is a fundamental property
of functions. There's no such thing as 'fall through'.
Whether or not the caller inspects or stores the return value
is irrelevant.
If you heard what you're telling us from a book, burn it.
If from an individual, shoot him. :-)
-Mike
"Thomas Stegen" <ts*****@cis.strath.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3f******@nntphost.cis.strath.ac.uk...
"Ian Tuomi" <ia*@co.jyu.fi> wrote in message
news:bk**********@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
Well, now you know the language rules after reading
all those posts :)
Anyways...
Just one more "reason". Even if it wasn't so that functions
did default to int it is nice to have void for symmetry and it
makes it easier to write simple parsing tools so they can use
simpler heuristics.
IMO it was a mistake to make functions default to int,
albeit a small one. More people seem to agree as it is now
a deprecated feature.
Not deprecated, but disallowed (by 9899:1999)
9899:1989 is no longer the C standard.
-Mike
"Ian Pilcher" <i.*******@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_XHab.524304$uu5.87448@sccrnsc04... Ian Tuomi wrote:
foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
}
I'm not entirely sure that this is even a valid function declaration.
It's valid for C89, but not C99.
If it is, the compiler will assume that foo returns an int.
A C89 compiler, yes. A C99 compiler that doesn't diagnose
it is broken.
-Mike
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:50:55 +0300
Ian Tuomi <ia*@co.jyu.fi> wrote: Hello, I was wondering, does it make any difference if you write
void foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
}
Legal. Returning from this function will choke your compiler.
foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
}
Illegal in C99, defaults to int in C89. Not returning here may cause undefined
behaviour.
What is the difference?? Both ways the function wont return anything,
right? What is the point in writing void? Is it merely a cosmetic feature?
Blah Blah Blah, it's been said in this thread more than once.
Another important example of a use for void lies in prototypes:
int blog ();
Is a prototype of a function returning an int, with unspecified function
arguments.
int glob (void);
A prototype for a function returning an int, with no function arguments.
--
char*x(c,k,s)char*k,*s;{if(!k)return*s-36?x(0,0,s+1):s;if(s)if(*s)c=10+(c?(x(
c,k,0),x(c,k+=*s-c,s+1),*k):(x(*s,k,s+1),0));else c=10;printf(&x(~0,0,k)[c-~-
c+"1"[~c<-c]],c);}main(){x(0,"^[kXc6]dn_eaoh$%c","-34*1'.+(,03#;+,)/'///*");}
Pieter Droogendijk <gi*@binky.homeunix.org> wrote: On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:50:55 +0300
Ian Tuomi <ia*@co.jyu.fi> wrote: Hello, I was wondering, does it make any difference if you write
void foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
}
Legal. Returning from this function will choke your compiler.
Huh, returning from a void function does harm to your compiler???
Well, (in C99) a return statement /with an expression/ shall not
appear in a function whose return type is void, but a return statement
without an expression shall only appear in a function whose return type
is void.
This implies that
void foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
return;
}
is fine.
<SNIP>
Regards
Irrwahn
--
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:16:53 GMT, "Mike Wahler"
<mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote in comp.lang.c:
"Thomas Stegen" <ts*****@cis.strath.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3f******@nntphost.cis.strath.ac.uk...
"Ian Tuomi" <ia*@co.jyu.fi> wrote in message
news:bk**********@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
Well, now you know the language rules after reading
all those posts :)
Anyways...
Just one more "reason". Even if it wasn't so that functions
did default to int it is nice to have void for symmetry and it
makes it easier to write simple parsing tools so they can use
simpler heuristics.
IMO it was a mistake to make functions default to int,
albeit a small one. More people seem to agree as it is now
a deprecated feature.
Not deprecated, but disallowed (by 9899:1999)
9899:1989 is no longer the C standard.
....and never was, but 9899:1990 was.
--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ ftp://snurse-l.org/pub/acllc-c++/faq
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Mike Wahler wrote: Someone correct me if I'm wrong, You're wrong.
Be more specific.
but IIRC
Recall from where?
Probably this very group or comp.std.c couple of months ago.
it's OK to fall through
without returning as long as you don't check the return value.
Oh, sorry. Translation:
...it's OK to return implicitly by letting the execution reach the
last closing brace of the function rather than with explicit return
statement with a proper value even for non-void functions as long
as you don't check the return value.
Not true. Where did you hear that? A function *always*
returns at the closing brace ( '}' ), regardless of whether
or not it returns a value. This is a fundamental property
of functions. There's no such thing as 'fall through'.
Duh. I was talking about /return/ing rather than returning ;)
Whether or not the caller inspects or stores the return value
is irrelevant.
"If the } that terminates a function is reached, and the value of the
function call is used by the caller, the behavior is undefined."
If you heard what you're telling us from a book, burn it.
Luckily I have only a draft. Otherwise this would get on my wallet.
If from an individual, shoot him. :-)
Can I quote that in court?
In message <Pi***********************************@unix50.andr ew.cmu.edu>
"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <aj*@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote: "Jarno A Wuolijoki" <jw******@cs.Helsinki.FI> wrote... Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC it's OK to fall through
without returning as long as you don't check the return value.
Or not even fall through -- you can insert a blank
return;
in the function for the same effect (immediate return to caller,
undefined return value).
Not as of C99. Both of your examples are illegal in C99.
In such cases, the Prime Directive of Misplaced Efficiency Tuning
dictates that we use 'return;' in place of 'return 0;', to save
the single "load" instruction. :-)
Indeed. I don't think there was a Misplaced Efficiency Tuning representative
on the C99 committee, alas.
--
Kevin Bracey, Principal Software Engineer
Tematic Ltd Tel: +44 (0) 1223 503464
182-190 Newmarket Road Fax: +44 (0) 1223 503458
Cambridge, CB5 8HE, United Kingdom WWW: http://www.tematic.com/
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Kevin Bracey wrote:
"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <aj*@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote: "Jarno A Wuolijoki" <jw******@cs.Helsinki.FI> wrote...
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC it's OK to fall through
> without returning as long as you don't check the return value.
Or not even fall through -- you can insert a blank
return;
in the function for the same effect (immediate return to caller,
undefined return value).
Not as of C99. Both of your examples are illegal in C99.
Hmm... N869 says you're right.
6.8.6.4 The return statement
Constraints
[#1] A return statement with an expression shall not appear
in a function whose return type is void. A return statement
without an expression shall only appear in a function whose
return type is void.
I wonder where I became so sure of what I posted earlier... I
distinctly remember seeing the opinion I posted, somewhere else
recently. I thought it was somewhere in N869, but apparently
not.
Thanks for the correction.
-Arthur
In message <Pi**********************************@unix48.andre w.cmu.edu>
"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <aj*@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote: On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Kevin Bracey wrote:
"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <aj*@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote: Or not even fall through -- you can insert a blank
return;
in the function for the same effect (immediate return to caller,
undefined return value).
Not as of C99. Both of your examples are illegal in C99.
I wonder where I became so sure of what I posted earlier... I
distinctly remember seeing the opinion I posted, somewhere else
recently. I thought it was somewhere in N869, but apparently
not.
Well, it was perfectly legal to "return;" in a non-void function before C99;
maybe you saw it in a C90 context.
--
Kevin Bracey, Principal Software Engineer
Tematic Ltd Tel: +44 (0) 1223 503464
182-190 Newmarket Road Fax: +44 (0) 1223 503458
Cambridge, CB5 8HE, United Kingdom WWW: http://www.tematic.com/
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Ian Tuomi wrote: Hello, I was wondering, does it make any difference if you write
void foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
}
or
foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
}
What is the difference?? Both ways the function wont return anything,
right? What is the point in writing void? Is it merely a cosmetic feature?
Incorrect. The second version will return an int. All too often new
programmers assume that having no return value indicates no return value
is necessary. The truth is that the second version returns an int. These
are the same:
int foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
/* make sure you return an int */
}
foo(int x)
{
/* insert code here */
/* make sure you return an int */
}
The purpose of void is to tell the compiler the function does not default
to returning an int.
--
Ian Tuomi
Jyväskylä, Finland
GCS d- s+: a--- C++>$ L+>+++$ E- W+ N+ !o>+ w---
!O- !M- t+ !5 !X R+ tv- b++ DI+ !D G e->+++ h!
--
darrell at cs dot toronto dot edu
or
main(){int j=1234;char t[]=":@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz.\n",*i=
"iqgbgxmdbjlgdv.lksrqek.n";char *strchr(const char *,int);while(
*i){j+=strchr(t,*i++)-t;j%=sizeof t-1;putchar(t[j]);} return 0;} This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: tyler_durden |
last post by:
hi there peeps...
like I say in the topic, I need to do an e-mail program in C language, and
has to be made until the 3th of january..the problem is I'm having some
problems with it.
I was...
|
by: ranjeet.gupta |
last post by:
Dear All
What does exactly below code means
struct File
{
void* data;
};
typedef struct File File;
typedef File* fl;
|
by: nick |
last post by:
i do not know what is the use of (e.g. void *pt), when will use it.
thanks!
|
by: Abhishek |
last post by:
why do I see that in most C programs, pointers in functions are
accepted as:
int func(int i,(void *)p) where p is a pointer or an address which is
passed from the place where it is called. what...
|
by: Niu Xiao |
last post by:
I see a lot of use in function declarations, such as
size_t fread(void* restrict ptr, size_t size, size_t nobj, FILE*
restrict fp);
but what does the keyword 'restrict' mean? there is no...
|
by: Niu Xiao |
last post by:
I saw a lot of codes like:
void foo(void* arg)
void bar(void** arg)
f((void*)p)
but what does void pointer mean in c? I just know it stands for generic
pointer.
thanks.
|
by: dasilva109 |
last post by:
Hi guys
I am new to C++ and need urgent help with this part of my code for a
uni coursework I have to submit by Thursday
//ClientData.h
#ifndef CLIENTDATA_H
#define CLIENTDATA_H
#include...
|
by: smorrey |
last post by:
Howdy folks,
I recently purchased a book on C++ MUD creation and it features alot of
nifty tidbits.
The book is
MUD GAME PROGRAMMING by Ron Penton
Publisher: Premier Press
Anyways of...
|
by: Shraddha |
last post by:
What is this exactly...
int(*(*ptr (int))(void)
First I thought that this is the pointer to function...But I recognize
that the syntax iss quite different...
If we say that the function is...
|
by: xiao |
last post by:
It always dumped when I tried to run it... But it compiles OK. What I
want to do is to do a test:
Read information from a .dat file and then write it to another file.
The original DAT file is...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
In our work, we often receive Excel tables with data in the same format. If we want to analyze these data, it can be difficult to analyze them because the data is spread across multiple Excel files...
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
| |
