On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 06:33:35PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 18/03/21 18:03, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 = x86_64/cr4_cpuid_sync_test
> > > +TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += x86_64/get_msr_index_features
> >
> > Maybe we should give up trying to keep an alphabetic order.
>
> FWIW I had fixed that but yeah maybe we should just give up.
>
> > > +int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > > +{
> > > + if (kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_GET_MSR_FEATURES))
> > > + test_get_msr_feature();
> > > +
> > > + test_get_msr_index();
> > Missing return
> >
> > > +}
>
> "main" is special, it's okay not to have a return there.
Hmm, yeah. I always assumed the compiler would complain or that you'd end
up with a garbage return code. But, I just checked, and indeed not only do
you not get a warning, even with -Wall -Wextra, but the compiler actually
emits code for a zero return value on your behalf. Looks weird to me
though to end an int function without a return, so I don't think I'm
going to adopt this practice myself.
Thanks,
drew
