ag@elgar.UUCP (Keith Gabryelski) (01/19/89)
The SCO XENIX C compiler (mine is version 2.2) does not handle a
return from main() correctly. A return from main should be the same
as an exit from main. It isn't.
You can confirm this by compiling, running, and checking the exit
status of:
main(){ return 0; }
and
main(){ exit(0); }
(On my machine, a 386 box running 2.3.1 OS and 2.2 dev system
The former's exit status is 1. The latter's exit status is 0.
Smail uses a return from main().
Smail will always exit (if mail was delivered ok) with a status of `2'
even though the exitstat is 0.
HDB (SCO 2.3.1) barfs (returns exit status info to calling site) on
any status other then `0' from rmail (rmail is linked to smail).
[Sorry Brian, I should have found this earlier.]
`recmail' (news) expects any non-zero return value of MAILER
(/usr/bin/smail) to be an indication of an error and returns mail
while passing the error along to `rn'. This shows itself to the user
as `rn' barfing after any `R' or `r' command (and returning mail to
you, the sender) even though mail has been sent. (Mailing to a
moderator would also barf, although I haven't tried it).
The following patch to smail[main.c] will fix this:
212c212
< return( exitstat );
---
> exit( exitstat );
This gist is, smail must use exit() instead of return to leave main
with a status code.
Pax, Keith
--
ag@elgar.CTS.COM Keith Gabryelski ...!{ucsd, crash}!elgar!agdavidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (01/20/89)
In article <31@elgar.UUCP> ag@elgar.UUCP (Keith Gabryelski) writes: | | The SCO XENIX C compiler (mine is version 2.2) does not handle a | return from main() correctly. A return from main should be the same | as an exit from main. It isn't. There was a discussion of this in one of the C groups, and my recollection of the result was that this is the way C works. When you exit(status) the result is defined, and if you return(status) it isn't always the same. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
chip@vector.UUCP (Chip Rosenthal) (01/20/89)
In article <31@elgar.UUCP> ag@elgar.UUCP (Keith Gabryelski) writes: >The SCO XENIX C compiler (mine is version 2.2) does not handle a >return from main() correctly. A return from main should be the same >as an exit from main. It isn't. [ I post because I ran into this ... and I site I helped just recently ran into it too. Bet we aren't the only ones... ] There has been an update to development system 2.2.0 which fixes this problem. I have two 96tpi floppies labelled UFC1 and UFC2. You might want to contact SCO about this update. -- Chip Rosenthal chip@vector.UUCP | Choke me in the shallow water Dallas Semiconductor 214-450-5337 | before I get too deep.
vipoon@kepler1.UUCP (Victor I Poon) (01/20/89)
In article <31@elgar.UUCP> ag@elgar.UUCP (Keith Gabryelski) writes: > >The SCO XENIX C compiler (mine is version 2.2) does not handle a >return from main() correctly. A return from main should be the same >as an exit from main. It isn't. > Interestingly enough, SCO fixed this problem in their development system patch. It updates the development system to 2.2.1 and the return 0 works. You can order this through SCO. The disk number is xnx060. Victor -- Victor I. Poon {acsm, sbcs, polyof}!kepler1!vipoon Kepler Financial Management, Ltd. You make more of me, I'll make more of you - Red Jack
daveh@marob.MASA.COM (Dave Hammond) (01/20/89)
In article <31@elgar.UUCP> ag@elgar.UUCP (Keith Gabryelski) writes: >The SCO XENIX C compiler (mine is version 2.2) does not handle a >return from main() correctly. A return from main should be the same >as an exit from main. It isn't. >You can confirm this by compiling, running, and checking the exit >status of: > main(){ return 0; } >and > main(){ exit(0); } >(On my machine, a 386 box running 2.3.1 OS and 2.2 dev system >The former's exit status is 1. The latter's exit status is 0. Hmmm ... [ tested on a SCO 386 box, 2.3.1 OS, 2.2 DS ] $ echo "main(){exit(0);}" >foo.c $ cc foo.c $ a.out $ echo $? $ 0 $ echo "main(){return(0);}" >foo.c $ cc foo.c $ a.out $ echo $? $ 0 $ echo "main(){exit(1);}" >foo.c $ cc foo.c $ a.out $ echo $? $ 1 $ echo "main(){return(1);}" >foo.c $ cc foo.c $ a.out $ echo $? $ 1 Hmmm ... [BTW, smail works fine on our SCO 2.2 and 2.3 OS's] Perhaps you're running a hacked-up shell? -- Dave Hammond ...!uunet!masa.com!{marob,dsix2}!daveh
ag@elgar.UUCP (Keith Gabryelski) (01/24/89)
In article <58@kepler1.UUCP> vipoon@kepler1.UUCP (Victor I Poon) writes: >In article <31@elgar.UUCP> ag@elgar.UUCP (Keith Gabryelski) writes: >>The SCO XENIX C compiler (mine is version 2.2) does not handle a >>return from main() correctly. > >Interestingly enough, SCO fixed this problem in their development >system patch. You can order this through SCO. The disk number is >xnx060. I just sent for the fix. lng060 is the correct disk number, FYI. Pax, Keith -- ag@elgar.CTS.COM Keith Gabryelski ...!{ucsd, crash}!elgar!ag