How is "int main" not a specifier type??

>>58221769
int main() specifies the type the function returns
anything inside the parens is a parameter that needs its own type declaration

>>58221769

int
main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    //code
}

>>58221769
>How is "int main" not a specifier type??
Are you blind you fucking mongo?

x is declared but not specified. It needs to have its type specified. The arrow is pointing at symbol x, not main.

>>58224467
>

int
main

Put a bullet in your brain.

>>58224564
this. Why are some people so retarded? There is only one correct syntax.

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    //code
    return 0;
}

>>58224681
>>58224564
>he doesn't follow kernel syntax
Prancing lala fruits, the both of you.

void main(string[] args)
{
    return;
}

>>58224564
>>58224681
I have no problem with that style.
I don't use it myself, but I understand why some people might want to use it.

It's referring to x dummy

it's saying that x is not enough info to go on. C++ requires, in order to provide you with codie goodness, that you abide its syntax laws.

>>58224741
Which kernel are you talking about? Because if you tried this shit in linux, you would probably be personally insulted by Torvalds.

>>58224741
>kernel syntax
laughinggirls.jpg

>>58224855
>>58224898
Disregard that, I suck cocks. That's what we used for a kernel we developed in class, and the professor was a GNU+Lanox fanatic, so I figured that's the style they used. On further inspection, GNU does follow it.

>>58224681

> Why are some people so retarded?

We like to grep

'^func('[\code] in order to find function implementation.

>>58224741
The kernel coding style doesn't do that.

>>58224968
>can't even use tags properly
let me guess, you also expect the debugger to spoonfeed you when you make a mistake.

>>58224681
>retarded
>int main
>return 0
lad...

>>58225179
It's called the exit code of success for a reason anon.