main without a return statement

[axr0284]

Hi,
I have a main function as follows:
int main(void)
{
while(TRUE) { ... }

return TRUE;
}

my question is since the return TRUE is never reached, can I remove
it. The compiler (VDSP 5.0) is complaining about the non reachability
in this case. When I remove it, it compiles without warning. Thanks,
Amish

[Eric Sosman]

axr0284 wrote On 11/07/07 10:27,:

Hi,
I have a main function as follows:
int main(void)
{
while(TRUE) { ... }

return TRUE;
}

my question is since the return TRUE is never reached, can I remove
it. The compiler (VDSP 5.0) is complaining about the non reachability
in this case. When I remove it, it compiles without warning. Thanks,

Yes, you can remove it.

(Incidentally, TRUE looks like a strange value to
return from main(). The only fully-portable return
values are EXIT_SUCCESS, EXIT_FAILURE, and zero.)

--
Er*********@sun.com

[axr0284]

On Nov 7, 11:23 am, Eric Sosman <[e-mail]:

axr0284 wrote On 11/07/07 10:27,:

Hi,
I have a main function as follows:
int main(void)
{
while(TRUE) { ... }

return TRUE;
}

my question is since the return TRUE is never reached, can I remove
it. The compiler (VDSP 5.0) is complaining about the non reachability
in this case. When I remove it, it compiles without warning. Thanks,

Yes, you can remove it.

(Incidentally, TRUE looks like a strange value to
return from main(). The only fully-portable return
values are EXIT_SUCCESS, EXIT_FAILURE, and zero.)

--
[e-mail]

Forgot to added the #define TRUE 1
Thanks for the answer

[Martin Ambuhl]

axr0284 wrote:

On Nov 7, 11:23 am, Eric Sosman <[e-mail]:

>axr0284 wrote On 11/07/07 10:27,:

>>Hi,
I have a main function as follows:
int main(void)
{
while(TRUE) { ... }
return TRUE;
}
my question is since the return TRUE is never reached, can I remove
it. The compiler (VDSP 5.0) is complaining about the non reachability
in this case. When I remove it, it compiles without warning. Thanks,

Yes, you can remove it.

(Incidentally, TRUE looks like a strange value to
return from main(). The only fully-portable return
values are EXIT_SUCCESS, EXIT_FAILURE, and zero.)

--
[e-mail]

Forgot to added the #define TRUE 1
Thanks for the answer

1 is not among the standard return values from main. The three with
mentioned in the standard are, as Eric Sosman wrote, 0, EXIT_SUCCESS,
and EXIT_FAILURE.

[jameskuyper]

axr0284 wrote:

On Nov 7, 11:23 am, Eric Sosman <[e-mail]:

....

return from main(). The only fully-portable return
values are EXIT_SUCCESS, EXIT_FAILURE, and zero.)

--
[e-mail]

Forgot to added the #define TRUE 1
Thanks for the answer

Keep in mind that the only fully-portable return values are the ones
Eric listed above, and none of them are guaranteed to be equal to 1.

[Philip Potter]

axr0284 wrote:

On Nov 7, 11:23 am, Eric Sosman <[e-mail]:

>axr0284 wrote On 11/07/07 10:27,:

>>int main(void)
{
while(TRUE) { ... }
return TRUE;
}

(Incidentally, TRUE looks like a strange value to
return from main(). The only fully-portable return
values are EXIT_SUCCESS, EXIT_FAILURE, and zero.)

Forgot to added the #define TRUE 1
Thanks for the answer

Please don't quote signatures.

Note that on a great many systems, returning 1 will indicate program
failure. If you have no compelling reason not to, only return
EXIT_SUCCESS, EXIT_FAILURE, or zero. Zero is equivalent to EXIT_SUCCESS.

--
Philip Potter pgp <atdoc.ic.ac.uk

[Barry Schwarz]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:27:07 -0000, axr0284 <ax*****@yahoo.comwrote:

>Hi,
I have a main function as follows:
int main(void)
{
while(TRUE) { ... }

return TRUE;
}

my question is since the return TRUE is never reached, can I remove
it. The compiler (VDSP 5.0) is complaining about the non reachability
in this case. When I remove it, it compiles without warning. Thanks,

Is there no break statement in the while loop? If that return
statement cannot be reached, how does main ever terminate? Does main
terminate or is your code for an embedded system?

TRUE is obviously non-zero and probably 1. It is not a portable value
to pass back to the operating system. At the point main does
terminate (if any), what value do you pass back to the operating
system.
Remove del for email

[Charlie Gordon]

"axr0284" <ax*****@yahoo.coma écrit dans le message de news:
11*********************@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.c om...

On Nov 7, 11:23 am, Eric Sosman <[e-mail]:

>axr0284 wrote On 11/07/07 10:27,:

Hi,
I have a main function as follows:
int main(void)
{
while(TRUE) { ... }

return TRUE;
}

my question is since the return TRUE is never reached, can I remove
it. The compiler (VDSP 5.0) is complaining about the non reachability
in this case. When I remove it, it compiles without warning. Thanks,

Yes, you can remove it.

(Incidentally, TRUE looks like a strange value to
return from main(). The only fully-portable return
values are EXIT_SUCCESS, EXIT_FAILURE, and zero.)

--
[e-mail]

Forgot to added the #define TRUE 1
Thanks for the answer

TRUE is not really needed, nor welcome, the classic idiom for this kind of
loop is

for (;;) { ... }

--
Chqrlie.

[Keith Thompson]

"Charlie Gordon" <ne**@chqrlie.orgwrites:
[...]

TRUE is not really needed, nor welcome, the classic idiom for this kind of
loop is

for (;;) { ... }

Or:

while (1) { ... }

(Let's not have a lengthy debate about which one is clearer, better,
and/or more idiomatic, ok?)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Looking for software development work in the San Diego area.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

"Charlie Gordon" <ne**@chqrlie.orgwrites:
[...]

>TRUE is not really needed, nor welcome, the classic idiom for this kind
of loop is

for (;;) { ... }

Or:

while (1) { ... }

(Let's not have a lengthy debate about which one is clearer, better,
and/or more idiomatic, ok?)

We can make it a very short debate. My vote is "neither".

(And yes, that test is still going.)

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Charlie Gordon]

"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalida écrit dans le message de news:
bN******************************@bt.com...

Keith Thompson said:

>"Charlie Gordon" <ne**@chqrlie.orgwrites:
[...]

>>TRUE is not really needed, nor welcome, the classic idiom for this kind
of loop is

for (;;) { ... }

Or:

while (1) { ... }

(Let's not have a lengthy debate about which one is clearer, better,
and/or more idiomatic, ok?)

Funny, I did not receive Keith's post. Let's feed the troll:

``for (;;) { ... }'' is unmistakably a testless loop (which you might find
tastless too ;-)

``while (1) { ... }'' can be confused with ``while (l) { ... }'', especially
on Usenet. I would use neither of these.

We can make it a very short debate. My vote is "neither".

Thank you for your constructive criticism, do you mean you use neither of
them, or both, or one but want to keep you preference to yourself ?

--
Chqrlie.

[CBFalconer]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Charlie Gordon said:

<snip>

>Funny, I did not receive Keith's post. Let's feed the troll:

``for (;;) { ... }'' is unmistakably a testless loop (which you
might find tastless too ;-)

``while (1) { ... }'' can be confused with
``while (l) { ... }'',

That took me a while to spot. Or possibly a for.

Do you mean you have found some difference between the two
statements? I confess I do not see any such. Unless he is using
one and ell, which have the same resolution on my screen.

Aha - I tried it on a hex editor.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Charlie Gordon]

"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.coma écrit dans le message de news:
47***************@yahoo.com...

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Charlie Gordon said:

<snip>

>>Funny, I did not receive Keith's post. Let's feed the troll:

``for (;;) { ... }'' is unmistakably a testless loop (which you
might find tastless too ;-)

``while (1) { ... }'' can be confused with
``while (l) { ... }'',

That took me a while to spot. Or possibly a for.

Do you mean you have found some difference between the two
statements? I confess I do not see any such. Unless he is using
one and ell, which have the same resolution on my screen.

Aha - I tried it on a hex editor.

QED

--
Chqrlie.

[pete]

Keith Thompson wrote:

>
"Charlie Gordon" <ne**@chqrlie.orgwrites:
[...]

TRUE is not really needed, nor welcome,
the classic idiom for this kind of loop is

for (;;) { ... }

Or:

while (1) { ... }

(Let's not have a lengthy debate about which one is clearer, better,
and/or more idiomatic, ok?)

You've got to be kidding!!!

First of all:
for (;;) { ... } gives No warning on MY compiler.
(for one specific value of "me").
while(1) gives me a warning about a conditional test expression
being constant.

Second of all:
for (;;) { ... } is the K&R example for an endless loop.

Third of all:
It's a special rule in the language for endless loops.
for (;1;); /* compiles */
for (; ;); /* compiles */
while(1); /* compiles */
while( ); /* doesn't compile */

--
pete