• "John C" <johnch_atms hotmail.com> Feb 22 2006
• Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> Feb 22 2006
• =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> Feb 22 2006
• "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> Feb 22 2006
• "John C" <johnch_atms hotmail.com> Feb 22 2006
• Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> Feb 22 2006
• Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> Feb 23 2006
• Deewiant <deewiant.doesnotlike.spam gmail.com> Feb 23 2006

"John C" <johnch_atms hotmail.com> writes:

Is "void main()" legal now? It used to cause an access violation (on Win32), 
but now appears to be allowed. Is it? 

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

John C wrote:
 Is "void main()" legal now? It used to cause an access violation (on Win32), 
 but now appears to be allowed. Is it? 


Yes.


Sean

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:

John C wrote:

 Is "void main()" legal now? It used to cause an access violation (on Win32), 
 but now appears to be allowed. Is it? 


It should be, Walter said it was fixed in DMD 0.147

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html#new0147:
# Fixed D.bugs/5851, D.bugs/2677, D.bugs/2853, D/13127

--anders

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:

"John C" <johnch_atms hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:dthu9g$28gc$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Is "void main()" legal now? It used to cause an access violation (on 
 Win32),


It did?  I've been using void main() for ages on Windows.. 

"John C" <johnch_atms hotmail.com> writes:

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:dtj0de$i60$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "John C" <johnch_atms hotmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:dthu9g$28gc$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Is "void main()" legal now? It used to cause an access violation (on 
 Win32),


 It did?  I've been using void main() for ages on Windows..


Maybe my memory's going. 

Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:24:52 -0000, John C wrote:

 "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
 news:dtj0de$i60$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "John C" <johnch_atms hotmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:dthu9g$28gc$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Is "void main()" legal now? It used to cause an access violation (on 
 Win32),


 It did?  I've been using void main() for ages on Windows..


 Maybe my memory's going.


I think the change for 'void main(){}' is that DMD now ensures that zero is
returned to the operating system. So now its the same as 'int main()
{return 0;}'
-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocracy!"
23/02/2006 3:18:08 PM

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:

Derek Parnell wrote:
 On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:24:52 -0000, John C wrote:
 
 
 "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
 news:dtj0de$i60$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
 "John C" <johnch_atms hotmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:dthu9g$28gc$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
 Is "void main()" legal now? It used to cause an access
 violation (on Win32),


 It did?  I've been using void main() for ages on Windows..


 Maybe my memory's going.


 
 I think the change for 'void main(){}' is that DMD now ensures that
 zero is returned to the operating system. So now its the same as 'int
 main() {return 0;}'


Yes. And I too don't remember when this was fixed. Probably like 6 
months ago.

Deewiant <deewiant.doesnotlike.spam gmail.com> writes:

Georg Wrede wrote:
 Derek Parnell wrote:
 I think the change for 'void main(){}' is that DMD now ensures that
 zero is returned to the operating system. So now its the same as 'int
 main() {return 0;}'


 Yes. And I too don't remember when this was fixed. Probably like 6
 months ago.


Actually, in DMD 0.146 - two weeks back. <g>