From:	kagel AT quasar DOT bloomberg DOT com
Date:	Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:02:58 -0400
Message-Id:	<9609061402.AA04554@quasar.bloomberg.com >
To:	Paul AT chocolat DOT foobar DOT co DOT uk
Cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<5bSurDA1X3LyEw+F@chocolat.foobar.co.uk> (message from Paul Shirley on Fri, 6 Sep 1996 01:53:09 +0100)
Subject:	Re: HELP MEEEEEE!!!!
Reply-To:	kagel AT dg1 DOT bloomberg DOT com

   From: Paul Shirley <Paul AT chocolat DOT foobar DOT co DOT uk>
   Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 01:53:09 +0100

   In article <322E303A DOT 114 AT cs DOT com>, "John M. Aldrich" <fighteer AT cs DOT com>
   writes
   >The term "microcontroller" is not familiar to me, but it doesn't really
   ....in which case why did you answer?

   >matter.  Even if a program is somehow compiled as a subprogram of a larger
   >one, it still exists as a _separate module_ and there is no guarantee that
   >somebody won't try to put it in a situation where its (undefined) return
   >code is needed.

   A microcontroller is a tiny processor system used in things like remote
   controls, toasters and CD players. It may have CPU,ROM,RAM and IO all on
   1 chip.

   It almost always runs just 1 program, which exits catastrophically when
   the user kills the power... now tell me again, what was the return value
   used for?

It does not matter whether the runtime startup code or OS, if there is one,
does with the return code.  The discussion is whether it is "good C" to write
main() as a type void function.  The definitive answer, discussed for several
weeks just two months ago, is that the language definition REQUIRES that the
function main() return an int, period.  End of discussion PLEASE!

May I also suggest that any future attempts to discuss this topic and several
other religious wars be simply directed to the news archives.

-- 
Art S. Kagel, kagel AT quasar DOT bloomberg DOT com

A proverb is no proverb to you 'till life has illustrated it.  -- John Keats

- Raw text -