cm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 month agounsafeCodelemmy.mlimagemessage-square13fedilinkarrow-up1249arrow-down113cross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
arrow-up1236arrow-down1imageunsafeCodelemmy.mlcm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 month agomessage-square13fedilinkcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
minus-squareKwdglinkfedilinkarrow-up28arrow-down1·1 month agoNot needed, main in C++ implicitly returns 0 if there is no return
minus-squareLucy :3@feddit.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up9arrow-down9·1 month agoShould ≠ Needs to You can do it, and it will work, but it’s unclean and not best-practice. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s undefined behaviour.
minus-squarexmunk@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up22·1 month agoJust to clarify. It is defined behavior - there’s plenty of undefined behavior in C but that ain’t one of them.
Not needed, main in C++ implicitly returns 0 if there is no return
Should ≠ Needs to
You can do it, and it will work, but it’s unclean and not best-practice. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s undefined behaviour.
Just to clarify. It is defined behavior - there’s plenty of undefined behavior in C but that ain’t one of them.