On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 3:31 PM Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 12:34 PM Brian Bi via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 12:24 PM Paul Caprioli via Std-Proposals <
>> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Finally, it must be taught that it is unconventional and not supported
>>> by older compilers.
>>>
>>
>> "not supported by older compilers" could be raised as an argument against
>> literally any new feature.
>>
>
> And it specifically should not be used against this feature, because IIUC
> the entire point of this feature is that every old compiler already
> supports it.
> I'm all in favor of standardizing existing practice. However, @Jan, your
> paper is conspicuously missing a table demonstrating which signatures are
> actually supported by the Big Four compiler vendors (and since what
> release/year they've been supported).
>
> You mention that you don't propose to standardize signatures containing
> `volatile`. I think that's the right choice; but again, you're missing a
> table demonstrating whether such signatures are already supported in
> practice.
>
> I recommend *not* trying to standardize `void main()` for two reasons:
> (1) Returning `void` instead of `int` actually could require different
> prologue/epilogue codegen on certain platforms. (Adding
> `const`-qualification to a pointer definitely doesn't.)
> (2) There is a *very* large body of work devoted to making fun of people
> who write `void main` and/or telling learners that `void main` is an even
> worse solecism than `using namespace std`. (Probably a significant fraction
> of this body of work was generated by current WG21 members, too.) You'd be
> proposing to obsolete all of that advice and horribly confuse newbies for
> decades to come. That's not just "not worth" doing; it's worth positively
> *not* doing.
>
> I wonder whether there is any prior art for
> - `unsigned main()` — this is certainly a physically compatible signature
> on all platforms, but does any compiler support it today?
> - `uint8_t main()` — I'm less sure this is physically compatible (same as
> my first objection to `void main`), but it *logically* more closely
> matches how Linux treats the return code. Does any compiler support it
> today?
>

It doesn't seem worthwhile to even consider signatures like `unsigned
main()` that approximately zero programmers have ever written or would want
to write.


>
> my $.02,
> –Arthur
>

-- 
*Brian Bi*