主要回报代码 [英] main return codes

问题描述

据我所知，该标准已经从函数main（）（0，EXIT_SUCCESS，EXIT_FAILURE）定义了三个便携式返回

代码。就个人而言，在我使用的所有平台上都是
，EXIT_SUCCESS是，＃define

EXIT_SUCCESS 0和EXIT_FAILURE是，＃define EXIT_FAILURE 1。我有，

然而，被告知有几个平台反向定义两个

（#define EXIT_SUCCESS 1和#define EXIT_FAILURE 0）。如果这是真的，我会期望对几乎所有应用程序使用EXIT_SUCCESS或

EXIT_FAILURE这是常见的礼仪，并避免使用return

0;以免意图在那些不符合规范的平台上标记失败。但是，在我使用的大多数软件项目中，返回0和返回0。是我来的最常见的退货代码

。


你们都有什么想法？我已经开始将stdlib.h包含在我工作的所有软件项目中，并避免使用return 0;。只是

有点好奇你的意见。


谢谢你，


-

Sean

As far as I can tell, the standard has defined three portable return
codes from function main() (0, EXIT_SUCCESS, EXIT_FAILURE). Personally,
on all platforms I have worked with, EXIT_SUCCESS is, "#define
EXIT_SUCCESS 0" and EXIT_FAILURE is, "#define EXIT_FAILURE 1". I have,
however, been told that a few platforms define the two in reverse
(#define EXIT_SUCCESS 1 and #define EXIT_FAILURE 0). If this is true, I
would expect that it would be common etiquette to use EXIT_SUCCESS or
EXIT_FAILURE for nearly all applications and avoid the use of "return
0;" so as not to accidentally flag a failure on those platforms that do
not comply with the "norm". However, in most of the software projects I
have worked with, "return 0" is the most common return code I''ve come
across.

What do you all think? I''ve pretty much started including stdlib.h in
all software projects that I work on and avoid using "return 0;". Just
kind of curious what you opinions are.

Thank you,

--
Sean

推荐答案

Fao，Sean< en ********** @ yahoo.comi-want-no -spam>潦草地写道：

Fao, Sean <en**********@yahoo.comi-want-no-spam> scribbled the following:

据我所知，标准已经从函数main（）（0，EXIT_SUCCESS，EXIT_FAILURE）定义了三个可移植的返回代码。就个人而言，在我使用过的所有平台上，EXIT_SUCCESS都是#define
EXIT_SUCCESS 0。和EXIT_FAILURE是，＃define EXIT_FAILURE 1。但是，我已经被告知有几个平台将两者反向定义（#define EXIT_SUCCESS 1和#define EXIT_FAILURE 0）。如果这是真的，我希望对几乎所有的应用程序使用EXIT_SUCCESS或
EXIT_FAILURE是常见的礼仪，并避免使用return
0;以免在那些不符合规范的平台上意外标记故障。但是，在我使用过的大多数软件项目中，返回0和是我来过的最常见的返回代码。
你们都有什么想法？我已经开始将stdlib.h包含在我工作的所有软件项目中，并避免使用return 0;。只是好奇你的意见。

As far as I can tell, the standard has defined three portable return
codes from function main() (0, EXIT_SUCCESS, EXIT_FAILURE). Personally,
on all platforms I have worked with, EXIT_SUCCESS is, "#define
EXIT_SUCCESS 0" and EXIT_FAILURE is, "#define EXIT_FAILURE 1". I have,
however, been told that a few platforms define the two in reverse
(#define EXIT_SUCCESS 1 and #define EXIT_FAILURE 0). If this is true, I
would expect that it would be common etiquette to use EXIT_SUCCESS or
EXIT_FAILURE for nearly all applications and avoid the use of "return
0;" so as not to accidentally flag a failure on those platforms that do
not comply with the "norm". However, in most of the software projects I
have worked with, "return 0" is the most common return code I''ve come
across. What do you all think? I''ve pretty much started including stdlib.h in
all software projects that I work on and avoid using "return 0;". Just
kind of curious what you opinions are.

AFAIK，C标准定义0表示成功退出。所以

平台不允许#define EXIT_FAILURE 0.


-

/ - Joona Palaste（pa * ****@cc.helsinki.fi）-------------芬兰-------- \

\ ----- -------------------------------------------------- - 规则！ -------- /

肯定很有钱和小鸡。

- Beavis和Butt-head

AFAIK, the C standard defines that 0 means a successful exit. So a
platform is not allowed to #define EXIT_FAILURE 0.

--
/-- Joona Palaste (pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-------------------------------------------------------- rules! --------/
"It sure is cool having money and chicks."
- Beavis and Butt-head

Joona I Palaste< pa ***** @ cc.helsinki.fi>写道：

Joona I Palaste <pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:

Fao，Sean< en ********** @ yahoo.comi-want-no-spam>潦草地写道：

Fao, Sean <en**********@yahoo.comi-want-no-spam> scribbled the following:

据我所知，标准已经从函数main（）（0，EXIT_SUCCESS，EXIT_FAILURE）定义了三个可移植的返回代码。就个人而言，在我使用过的所有平台上，EXIT_SUCCESS都是#define
EXIT_SUCCESS 0。和EXIT_FAILURE是，＃define EXIT_FAILURE 1。但是，我已经被告知有几个平台将两者反向定义（#define EXIT_SUCCESS 1和#define EXIT_FAILURE 0）。如果这是真的，我希望对几乎所有的应用程序使用EXIT_SUCCESS或
EXIT_FAILURE是常见的礼仪，并避免使用return
0;以免在那些不符合规范的平台上意外标记故障。但是，在我使用过的大多数软件项目中，返回0和是我来过的最常见的返回代码。

As far as I can tell, the standard has defined three portable return
codes from function main() (0, EXIT_SUCCESS, EXIT_FAILURE). Personally,
on all platforms I have worked with, EXIT_SUCCESS is, "#define
EXIT_SUCCESS 0" and EXIT_FAILURE is, "#define EXIT_FAILURE 1". I have,
however, been told that a few platforms define the two in reverse
(#define EXIT_SUCCESS 1 and #define EXIT_FAILURE 0). If this is true, I
would expect that it would be common etiquette to use EXIT_SUCCESS or
EXIT_FAILURE for nearly all applications and avoid the use of "return
0;" so as not to accidentally flag a failure on those platforms that do
not comply with the "norm". However, in most of the software projects I
have worked with, "return 0" is the most common return code I''ve come
across.

你们都有什么想法？我已经开始将stdlib.h包含在我工作的所有软件项目中，并避免使用return 0;。只是好奇你的意见。

What do you all think? I''ve pretty much started including stdlib.h in
all software projects that I work on and avoid using "return 0;". Just
kind of curious what you opinions are.

AFAIK，C标准定义0表示成功退出。所以
平台不允许#define EXIT_FAILURE 0。

AFAIK, the C standard defines that 0 means a successful exit. So a
platform is not allowed to #define EXIT_FAILURE 0.

是的。 IIRC有问题的系统是MVS（也许是VMS;我从来没有使用过

，如果他们坚持使用这种可混淆的缩写词，我就会把它们归咎于责备...），EXIT_FAILURE #defined为2或其他一些

非零甚至整数，并且编译器在

屏幕后做了一些摆弄以确保程序退出后，返回值0被更改为奇数值

。

无论如何，0和EXIT_SUCCESS都必须返回成功的退出状态

到环境。有趣的是，没有任何东西要求它们都能获得相同的成功;我认为在一个系统中，b $ b将负值视为失败而非负视为成功，这是一个

实现，其中#defined EXIT_FAILURE为-1，EXIT_SUCCESS为1，

并将这些返回到环境不变，符合要求。

这将给C程序员两种成功的方法，但只有一种方式来支付
失败 - 这种情况与任何程序员的经历完全不一致，当然是
，但在这样的环境中编程一定很幸福:-)


Richard

Yes. IIRC the system in question is MVS (maybe VMS; I''ve never used
either, and if they insist on using such confusable abbreviations, I
hold them to blame...), EXIT_FAILURE was #defined to be 2 or some other
non-zero even integer, and the compiler did some fiddling behind the
screens to ensure that a return value of 0 was changed to an odd value
after the program exits.
In any case, both 0 and EXIT_SUCCESS must return a succesful exit status
to the environment. Interestingly, there''s nothing that demands that
they both return the same succesful; I suppose that on a sytem which
sees negative values as failure and non-negative as success, an
implementation which #defined EXIT_FAILURE as -1 and EXIT_SUCCESS as 1,
and returns these to the environment unchanged, would be conforming.
This would give the C programmer two ways to succeed, but only one to
fail - a situation completely at odds with any programmer''s experience,
of course, but it must be bliss to program in such an environment :-)

Richard

Joona I Palaste写道：

Joona I Palaste wrote:

AFAIK，C标准定义0表示成功退出。所以
平台不允许#define EXIT_FAILURE 0。

AFAIK, the C standard defines that 0 means a successful exit. So a
platform is not allowed to #define EXIT_FAILURE 0.

哦，我忘了提到我的整个帖子都假定那个人>
告诉我一些平台#define EXIT_FAILURE 0，实际上知道他们讨论的是什么
。我的整个论点都没有实际意义，如果他们只是随便吐出一堆热气;-)。


-

Sean

Oh, I forgot to mention that my entire post assumes that the people that
told me some platforms #define EXIT_FAILURE 0, actually knew what they
were talking about. My entire argument is moot if they''re just spitting
out a bunch of hot air ;-).

--
Sean

这篇关于主要回报代码的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！