On 21 July 2016 at 13:37, Oliver Kullmann <o.kullmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The old wording you're looking at was modified by >> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1003 > > There it says > > All implementations shall allow both > function of () returning int and ... > as the type of main. > > That is rather unclear, unfortunately. > The question is what "the type" means. The type of the function. It's entirely clear, give up. > As far as I am aware, 8.3.5 only *mentions* the "equivalence of types", > but does not say where this is applicable. int main(void) and int main() declare the same function. It has the same type, because it's the same function. > And in any case, for that to work, the option "std=c++14" had to be > used, or? No, for several reasons including that G++ applies DRs retroactively and G++ has **always** accepted int main(void) as a valid definition for main. But in any case the OP is using GCC 6, so the default is -std=gnu++14. Seriously, why are you still banging on about this? > Anyway, just removing the "void" seems to me the clearest solution. But doesn't fix the OP's problem and is totally irrelevant. > And according to > C++ Standard Core Language Defect Reports and Accepted Issues, > Revision 96 > > Issues with DR, accepted, DRWP, and WP status are NOT part of the > International Standard for C++. > Don't know about "CD3", but it appears that is still not "in", or? Irrelevant, the modified wording is part of C++14, which is the only C++ standard that is still an ISO standard. Is there any need for this continued pedantry? The OP's code is valid. Give it a rest.
