i have to agree. why are you including stdlib.h? knock it off with that EXIT_SUCCESS faggotry and use a literal 0. it's clearer that way. also don't bother checking for failures when writing to stdout. if your writes to stdout are failing, you're fucked no matter what you do. your program will be cleaner without the extra code
>>3 use a literal 0. it's clearer that way
Unspecified return values are clearer than specified ones? My goodness, perhaps you shouldn't program at all either?
>>6
functions do that. not program exit codes. so for every syscall do you #define new status codes? you sound like the type of retard that would #define ONE 1 and #define ZERO 0.
also did you just imply that the read and write syscalls are obscure? what the fuck am i reading?
>>8
when your kernel runs a program, what is the first function it calls? is it open()? if it is then i'd like to know the name of your kernel. most kernels however call main()
>>16
that is an os- and linker-specific detail. given that the discussion is about main()'s interface, it's reasonable to ignore those things. still i suppose an os's version of _start could invert the value returned by main(), but no one has yet named such a system
>>23
pardon me for attempting to get to the root of a misunderstanding. i'm sure the guy with the grep question didn't actually want an informative answer
Name:
Anonymous2010-09-22 8:04
>>25 ERGO YOUR WRONG BITCH YOU HAVE BEEN TROLLED CONSTANTLY HAX MY ANUS MY OTHER CAR IS A CDR
Name:
Anonymous2010-09-22 8:06
>>9
I've seen retard who redifined ONE from 1 to 4. Code reuse my anus.