cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/nologin nologin.c
paul at originative.co.uk
Thu Jan 6 03:57:12 PST 2005
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 10:43:56AM +0000, Nik Clayton wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 11:11:07PM +0000, Robert Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Maxime Henrion wrote:
> > > I bet there is a reason behind this, but I'm totally puzzled at why you
> > > would do such a thing. It was much prettier and more "C" before. Could
> > > you shed some light on this please?
> > I ran into exactly the same problem I assume Xin Li is now running into
> > just a few days ago: gcc warns if argc and argv are unused in the main()
> > definition if they aren't referenced when running at higher WARNS levels.
> > I would argue this is a bug in gcc, since main() is part of an API calling
> > convention, and it doesn't matter if the arguments are unused by the
> > function -- they are still provided by the caller. But then, I'm not a C
> > expert, so maybe this opinion is the result of poor breeding? :-)
> What's wrong with (the perfectly legal):
> or does gcc complain about that too?
No it doesn't and it seems to me to be more correct than using a gcc macro.
More information about the cvs-all