• John C (2/2) Feb 22 2006 Is "void main()" legal now? It used to cause an access violation (on Win...
• Sean Kelly (3/5) Feb 22 2006 Yes.
• =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= (5/7) Feb 22 2006 It should be, Walter said it was fixed in DMD 0.147
• Jarrett Billingsley (3/5) Feb 22 2006 It did? I've been using void main() for ages on Windows..
• John C (3/8) Feb 22 2006 Maybe my memory's going.
• Derek Parnell (10/20) Feb 22 2006 I think the change for 'void main(){}' is that DMD now ensures that zero...
• Georg Wrede (3/23) Feb 23 2006 Yes. And I too don't remember when this was fixed. Probably like 6
• Deewiant (2/9) Feb 23 2006 Actually, in DMD 0.146 - two weeks back.

"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:


--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>