Re: [AD] got rid of END_OF_MAIN()

[Chris <kcat@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Benfield wrote:
> If you mean from quite a while before, then ok.

I'm not actually sure what the concensus was, but I was told by Bobn on 
Allegro.cc that doing something like:
#define main \
_mangled_main(int, char **); \
int main(int argc, char **argv) \
{ \
   return _mangled_main(argc, argv); \
} \
int _mangled_main

was not something they wanted to do. And with good reason.

> I don't understand this. There's no need to make everything that's valid 
> C be valid for Allegro. I mean, currently this:
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> { whatever.... }
>
> (without the END_OF_MAIN) is valid C but it doesn't work with Allegro.

Yes it does.. for systems that don't require any special processing, anyway.


> Unless you know something I don't this is irrelevant. Allegro already does
> #define main _mangled_main
> So how is my way any different?

Because that'll soimply rename things called main to _mangled_main. 
Whereas a patch like the one I wrote above would insert arbitrary code 
and confuse the compiler. For example:

struct blah {
   int main;
};

would currently simply change to:

struct blah {
   int _mangled_main;
};

but with a patch like mine would become:

struct blah {
   int _mangled_main(int, char **);
   int main(int argc, char **argv)
   {
      return _mangled_main(argc, argv);
   }
   int _mangled_main;
};

Besides being invalid C, it introduces a main() method to the struct, as 
well as causes _mangled_main to have two different declarations.

- Kitty Cat