Does int main() need a declaration on C++?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}







40















When learning functions on C++, I was taught that functions need declarations to be called. For example:



#include <iostream>

int main() {
std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
return 0;
}

int sum(int x, int y) {
return x + y;
}


It returns an error, as there is no declaration for the function sum.



main.cpp:4:36: error: use of undeclared identifier 'sum'
std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
^
1 error generated.


To fix this, I'd add the declaration:



#include <iostream>

int sum(int x, int y); // declaration

int main() {
std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
return 0;
}

int sum(int x, int y) {
return x + y;
}


My question is, why we don't add a declaration for the main function, as we'd have to add for other functions, like sum?










share|improve this question




















  • 17





    Manually calling main invokes undefined behaviour.

    – George
    Apr 1 at 14:40






  • 23





    @MichaelStachowsky -- in C you're allowed to call main. In C++ you aren't; it isn't "just a function" -- it's special. Historically, the reason is that compilers added code to main to initialize global variables that required dynamic initialization; calling main from inside the program would re-initialize those variables, and the result would be chaos.

    – Pete Becker
    Apr 1 at 16:41






  • 26





    @Michael That you've tried something and found that "it works just fine" does not prove that something is not undefined behavior.

    – Cody Gray
    Apr 1 at 16:53






  • 7





    As an aside, you don't need a declaration for sum if you put the definition above main in the file. For this reason, it is common to see main as the last function in C and C++ source code, so you don't need to have forward declarations for other functions defined in that file. Not like C# and Java that often put main first, although it is not required in those cases.

    – Cody
    Apr 1 at 16:59






  • 10





    Technically your example code has declared main, a definition of a function also declares the function. That's why you can move sum before main to avoid having to separately declare sum.

    – Ross Ridge
    Apr 1 at 18:49


















40















When learning functions on C++, I was taught that functions need declarations to be called. For example:



#include <iostream>

int main() {
std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
return 0;
}

int sum(int x, int y) {
return x + y;
}


It returns an error, as there is no declaration for the function sum.



main.cpp:4:36: error: use of undeclared identifier 'sum'
std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
^
1 error generated.


To fix this, I'd add the declaration:



#include <iostream>

int sum(int x, int y); // declaration

int main() {
std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
return 0;
}

int sum(int x, int y) {
return x + y;
}


My question is, why we don't add a declaration for the main function, as we'd have to add for other functions, like sum?










share|improve this question




















  • 17





    Manually calling main invokes undefined behaviour.

    – George
    Apr 1 at 14:40






  • 23





    @MichaelStachowsky -- in C you're allowed to call main. In C++ you aren't; it isn't "just a function" -- it's special. Historically, the reason is that compilers added code to main to initialize global variables that required dynamic initialization; calling main from inside the program would re-initialize those variables, and the result would be chaos.

    – Pete Becker
    Apr 1 at 16:41






  • 26





    @Michael That you've tried something and found that "it works just fine" does not prove that something is not undefined behavior.

    – Cody Gray
    Apr 1 at 16:53






  • 7





    As an aside, you don't need a declaration for sum if you put the definition above main in the file. For this reason, it is common to see main as the last function in C and C++ source code, so you don't need to have forward declarations for other functions defined in that file. Not like C# and Java that often put main first, although it is not required in those cases.

    – Cody
    Apr 1 at 16:59






  • 10





    Technically your example code has declared main, a definition of a function also declares the function. That's why you can move sum before main to avoid having to separately declare sum.

    – Ross Ridge
    Apr 1 at 18:49














40












40








40


2






When learning functions on C++, I was taught that functions need declarations to be called. For example:



#include <iostream>

int main() {
std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
return 0;
}

int sum(int x, int y) {
return x + y;
}


It returns an error, as there is no declaration for the function sum.



main.cpp:4:36: error: use of undeclared identifier 'sum'
std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
^
1 error generated.


To fix this, I'd add the declaration:



#include <iostream>

int sum(int x, int y); // declaration

int main() {
std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
return 0;
}

int sum(int x, int y) {
return x + y;
}


My question is, why we don't add a declaration for the main function, as we'd have to add for other functions, like sum?










share|improve this question
















When learning functions on C++, I was taught that functions need declarations to be called. For example:



#include <iostream>

int main() {
std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
return 0;
}

int sum(int x, int y) {
return x + y;
}


It returns an error, as there is no declaration for the function sum.



main.cpp:4:36: error: use of undeclared identifier 'sum'
std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
^
1 error generated.


To fix this, I'd add the declaration:



#include <iostream>

int sum(int x, int y); // declaration

int main() {
std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
return 0;
}

int sum(int x, int y) {
return x + y;
}


My question is, why we don't add a declaration for the main function, as we'd have to add for other functions, like sum?







c++ main forward-declaration function-declaration






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 1 at 15:01









NathanOliver

98.2k16138217




98.2k16138217










asked Apr 1 at 14:37









vnbrsvnbrs

1,56811024




1,56811024








  • 17





    Manually calling main invokes undefined behaviour.

    – George
    Apr 1 at 14:40






  • 23





    @MichaelStachowsky -- in C you're allowed to call main. In C++ you aren't; it isn't "just a function" -- it's special. Historically, the reason is that compilers added code to main to initialize global variables that required dynamic initialization; calling main from inside the program would re-initialize those variables, and the result would be chaos.

    – Pete Becker
    Apr 1 at 16:41






  • 26





    @Michael That you've tried something and found that "it works just fine" does not prove that something is not undefined behavior.

    – Cody Gray
    Apr 1 at 16:53






  • 7





    As an aside, you don't need a declaration for sum if you put the definition above main in the file. For this reason, it is common to see main as the last function in C and C++ source code, so you don't need to have forward declarations for other functions defined in that file. Not like C# and Java that often put main first, although it is not required in those cases.

    – Cody
    Apr 1 at 16:59






  • 10





    Technically your example code has declared main, a definition of a function also declares the function. That's why you can move sum before main to avoid having to separately declare sum.

    – Ross Ridge
    Apr 1 at 18:49














  • 17





    Manually calling main invokes undefined behaviour.

    – George
    Apr 1 at 14:40






  • 23





    @MichaelStachowsky -- in C you're allowed to call main. In C++ you aren't; it isn't "just a function" -- it's special. Historically, the reason is that compilers added code to main to initialize global variables that required dynamic initialization; calling main from inside the program would re-initialize those variables, and the result would be chaos.

    – Pete Becker
    Apr 1 at 16:41






  • 26





    @Michael That you've tried something and found that "it works just fine" does not prove that something is not undefined behavior.

    – Cody Gray
    Apr 1 at 16:53






  • 7





    As an aside, you don't need a declaration for sum if you put the definition above main in the file. For this reason, it is common to see main as the last function in C and C++ source code, so you don't need to have forward declarations for other functions defined in that file. Not like C# and Java that often put main first, although it is not required in those cases.

    – Cody
    Apr 1 at 16:59






  • 10





    Technically your example code has declared main, a definition of a function also declares the function. That's why you can move sum before main to avoid having to separately declare sum.

    – Ross Ridge
    Apr 1 at 18:49








17




17





Manually calling main invokes undefined behaviour.

– George
Apr 1 at 14:40





Manually calling main invokes undefined behaviour.

– George
Apr 1 at 14:40




23




23





@MichaelStachowsky -- in C you're allowed to call main. In C++ you aren't; it isn't "just a function" -- it's special. Historically, the reason is that compilers added code to main to initialize global variables that required dynamic initialization; calling main from inside the program would re-initialize those variables, and the result would be chaos.

– Pete Becker
Apr 1 at 16:41





@MichaelStachowsky -- in C you're allowed to call main. In C++ you aren't; it isn't "just a function" -- it's special. Historically, the reason is that compilers added code to main to initialize global variables that required dynamic initialization; calling main from inside the program would re-initialize those variables, and the result would be chaos.

– Pete Becker
Apr 1 at 16:41




26




26





@Michael That you've tried something and found that "it works just fine" does not prove that something is not undefined behavior.

– Cody Gray
Apr 1 at 16:53





@Michael That you've tried something and found that "it works just fine" does not prove that something is not undefined behavior.

– Cody Gray
Apr 1 at 16:53




7




7





As an aside, you don't need a declaration for sum if you put the definition above main in the file. For this reason, it is common to see main as the last function in C and C++ source code, so you don't need to have forward declarations for other functions defined in that file. Not like C# and Java that often put main first, although it is not required in those cases.

– Cody
Apr 1 at 16:59





As an aside, you don't need a declaration for sum if you put the definition above main in the file. For this reason, it is common to see main as the last function in C and C++ source code, so you don't need to have forward declarations for other functions defined in that file. Not like C# and Java that often put main first, although it is not required in those cases.

– Cody
Apr 1 at 16:59




10




10





Technically your example code has declared main, a definition of a function also declares the function. That's why you can move sum before main to avoid having to separately declare sum.

– Ross Ridge
Apr 1 at 18:49





Technically your example code has declared main, a definition of a function also declares the function. That's why you can move sum before main to avoid having to separately declare sum.

– Ross Ridge
Apr 1 at 18:49












7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes


















46














A definition of a function is also a declaration of a function.



The purpose of a declaring a function is to make it known to the compiler. Declaring a function without defining it allows a function to be used in places where it is inconvenient to define it. For example:




  • If a function is used in a source file (A) other than the one it is defined in (B), we need to declare it in A (usually via a header that A includes, such as B.h).

  • If two or more functions may call each other, then we cannot define all those functions before the others—one of them has to be first. So declarations can be provided first, with definitions coming afterward.

  • Many people prefer to put “higher level” routines earlier in a source file and subroutines later. Since those “higher level” routines call various subroutines, the subroutines must be declared earlier.


In C++, a user program never calls main, so it never needs a declaration before the definition. (Note that you could provide one if you wished. There is nothing special about a declaration of main in this regard.) In C, a program can call main. In that case, it does require that a declaration be visible before the call.



Note that main does need to be known to the code that calls it. This is special code in what is typically called the C++ runtime startup code. The linker includes that code for you automatically when you are linking a C++ program with the appropriate linker options. Whatever language that code is written in, it has whatever declaration of main it needs in order to call it properly.






share|improve this answer
























  • I think this is the most complete and correct answer so far. It's a pitty it won't get more popular because of the abundance of text. Could you add some tl;dr at the beginning? Also, I think, that it might not be obvious that the C++ compilers parse the code in such a sequential manner. Other languages overcome this issue by scanning declarations first and definitions later. C++ overcomes it only for class bodies.

    – pkubik
    Apr 1 at 23:26











  • Thank you for this! Indeed the most complete one. I can now understand this a bit more.

    – vnbrs
    Apr 2 at 11:54





















37















I was taught that functions need declarations to be called.




Indeed. A function must be declared before it can be called.




why we don't add a declaration for the main function?




Well, you didn't call main function. In fact, you must not call main at all1, so there is never a need to declare main before anything.



Technically though, all definitions are also declarations, so your definition of main also declares main.





Footnote 1: The C++ standard says it's undefined behaviour to call main from within the program.



This allows C++ implementations to put special run-once startup code at the top of main, if they aren't able to have it run earlier from hooks in the startup code that normally calls main. Some real implementations do in fact do this, e.g. calling a fast-math function that sets some FPU flags like denormals-are-zero.



On a hypothetical implementation, calling main could result in fun things like re-running constructors for all static variables, re-initializing the data structures used by new/delete to keep track of allocations, or other total breakage of your program. Or it might not cause any problem at all. Undefined behaviour doesn't mean it has to fail on every implementation.






share|improve this answer

































    34














    The prototype is required if you want to call the function, but it's not yet available, like sum in your case.



    You must not call main yourself, so there is no need to have a prototype. It's even a bad a idea to write a prototype.






    share|improve this answer


























    • It is not a "bad idea" at all to call main. C allows it; C++ makes it undefined for reasons which have nothing to do with it being a bad idea.

      – Kaz
      Apr 2 at 15:06






    • 9





      @Kaz It's a bad idea to do something whose behaviour is undefined.

      – eerorika
      Apr 2 at 15:19











    • @eeroika That's a circular argument. Recursive main that was well-defined came first. The answer says that not only must you not do this, but it's even a bad idea.That implies that it's a bad idea for additional reasons other than it being prohibited, or perhaps that it's prohibited due to being a bad idea, which is not so. This is just a feature of C that the C++ dialect fails to implement.

      – Kaz
      Apr 2 at 15:34






    • 1





      A C++ compiler is allowed to emit the translated image main as if it were extern "C" linkage. Or to substitute a different symbol for its name entirely, like __main or whatever. Yet, it's also allowed to ignore these considerations when compiling main, and treat it just as another function, so that the main symbol is declared in the ordinary way. The recursive call to main may expect to be calling a C++ function called main with ordinary C++ linkage, that supports overloading and all, yet there need not be such a symbol at all in the translation due to the special treatment.

      – Kaz
      Apr 2 at 15:39






    • 1





      @MatthieuBrucher Ah, OK; I misread that. The prototype could serve no useful purpose in C++.

      – Kaz
      Apr 2 at 15:40



















    25














    No, the compiler does not need a forward declaration for main().



    main() is a special function in C++.



    Some important things to remember about main() are:




    1. The linker requires that one and only one main() function exist when creating an executable program.

    2. The compiler expects a main() function in one of the following two forms:


    int main () { /* body */ } 
    int main (int argc, char *argv) { /* body */ }


    where body is zero or more statements



    An additional acceptable form is implementation specific and provides a list of the environment variables at the time the function is called:



    int main (int argc, char* argv, char *envp) { /* body */ }


    The coder must provide the 'definition' of main using one of these acceptable forms, but the coder does not need to provide a declaration. The coded definiton is accepted by the compiler as the declaration of main().




    1. If no return statement is provided, the compiler will provide a return 0; as the last statement in the function body.


    As an aside, there is sometimes confusion about whether a C++ program can make a call to main(). This is not recommended. The C++17 draft states that main() "shall not be used within a program." In other words, cannot be called from within a program. See e.g. Working Draft Standard for C++ Programming Language, dated "2017-03-21", Paragraph 6.6.1.3, page 66. I realize that some compilers support this (including mine), but the next version of the compiler could modify or remove that behavior as the standard uses the term "shall not".






    share|improve this answer


























    • Also note that the standard allows other implementation-defined signatures for main besides the two you listed here. A common option is to add a 3rd argument (after argv) that contains the environment variables (using the same method as extern char** environ)

      – SJL
      Apr 1 at 19:51











    • @SJL: Absolutely! I have only listed the ones that "must" be implemented by the compiler. The environ is also very helpful.

      – Gardener
      Apr 1 at 19:52






    • 8





      "compiler does not need a declaration for main()" Every definition is a declaration, so I think the wording needs to be adjusted. "compiler declares it as one of the following two functions" Why "compiler declares"? We always provide a definition for main ourselves.

      – HolyBlackCat
      Apr 1 at 20:02








    • 1





      @HolyBlackCat: I see your point. Wording is important. Even if I change it, without quoting the entire standard, there will not be a complete answer. The answer is meant to be simple. See what you think of this update.

      – Gardener
      Apr 1 at 20:14






    • 6





      There's nothing special about the main function with regards to (forward) declaration. That's simply a red herring. Rather, we don't need to forward declare it since we're not referring to it before its definition. That's all.

      – Konrad Rudolph
      Apr 1 at 22:19



















    10














    It is illegal to call main from inside your program. That means the only thing that is going to call it is the runtime and the compiler/linker can handle setting that up.This means you do not need a prototype for main.






    share|improve this answer































      7














      A definition of a function also implicitly declares it. If you need to reference a function before it is defined you need to declare it before you use it.



      So writing the following is also valid:



      int sum(int x, int y) {
      return x + y;
      }

      int main() {
      std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
      return 0;
      }


      If you use a declaration in one file to make a function known to the compiler before it is defined, then its definition has to be known at linking time:



      main.cpp



      int sum(int x, int y);

      int main() {
      std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
      return 0;
      }


      sum.cpp



      int sum(int x, int y) {
      return x + y;
      }


      Or sum could have its origin in a library, so you do not even compile it yourself.



      The main function is not used/referenced in your code anywhere, so there is no need to add the declaration of main anywhere.



      Before and after your main function the c++ library might execute some init and cleanup steps, and will call your main function. If that part of the library would be represented as c++ code then it would contain a declaration of int main() so that that it could be compiled. That code could look like this:



      int main();

      int __main() {
      __startup_runtime();

      main();

      __cleanup_runtime();
      }


      But then you again have the same problem with __main so at some point there is no c++ anymore and a certain function (main) just represents the entry point of your code.






      share|improve this answer


























      • C++ makes it UB to call main from inside the program, so C++ compilers can put those startup/cleanup calls right into the real main if they want. This rule lets C++ compilers work on top of C environments, for example, giving somewhere for static constructors to be called from if there's no other mechanism a compiler can use. (Compilers also have to recognize main as a special function name to give it an implicit return 0.)

        – Peter Cordes
        Apr 2 at 11:06











      • @PeterCordes from the perspective of the programmer it is UB to call the main function due to the the standard. But how the compile vendors or the os handles main is implementation dependent. So in theory the compiled result of the main could look like a regular function that is called by the run-time, or it could not exists and as you said, the compilers can put those startup/cleanup calls right at the entry point of the application around the code that is shown in the main.

        – t.niese
        Apr 2 at 11:40











      • Yup, in most implementations it is just a normal function (but with an implicit extern "C" to not do C++ name mangling on it, so the CRT startup code can link to it regardless of function signature), with real init work done in CRT code and/or from dynamic linker hooks. But like I commented Joshua's answer, ICC (Intel's compiler) does in fact add some startup code inside main itself (godbolt.org/z/oWlmlc), including setting DAZ and FTZ to disable subnormals for its default of -ffast-math. gcc/clang link different CRT startup files for fast-math or not.

        – Peter Cordes
        Apr 2 at 12:13



















      5














      Nope. You can't call it anyway.



      You only need forward declarations for functions called before they are defined. You need external declarations (which look exactly like forward declarations on purpose) for functions defined in other files.



      But you can't call main in C++ so you don't need one. This is because the C++ compiler is allowed to modify main to do global initialization.



      [I looked at crt0.c and it does have a declaration for main but that's neither here nor there].






      share|improve this answer


























      • You can call main, it's just typically bad practice.

        – Cruz Jean
        Apr 1 at 14:40






      • 8





        @CruzJean not just a bad practice, it's undefined behavior as far as I know

        – Guillaume Racicot
        Apr 1 at 14:41






      • 5





        @CruzJean Not bad practice. Calling it invokes undefined behavior.

        – Algirdas Preidžius
        Apr 1 at 14:42











      • @AlgirdasPreidžius Ah, I stand corrected. Never knew about that.

        – Cruz Jean
        Apr 1 at 14:46











      • This is because the C++ compiler is allowed to modify main to do global initialization. Is it? I can't see how that would even work as you would be assigning in main which can change the observable effects of the program.

        – NathanOliver
        Apr 1 at 14:54












      Your Answer






      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
      StackExchange.snippets.init();
      });
      });
      }, "code-snippets");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "1"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55457704%2fdoes-int-main-need-a-declaration-on-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      7 Answers
      7






      active

      oldest

      votes








      7 Answers
      7






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      46














      A definition of a function is also a declaration of a function.



      The purpose of a declaring a function is to make it known to the compiler. Declaring a function without defining it allows a function to be used in places where it is inconvenient to define it. For example:




      • If a function is used in a source file (A) other than the one it is defined in (B), we need to declare it in A (usually via a header that A includes, such as B.h).

      • If two or more functions may call each other, then we cannot define all those functions before the others—one of them has to be first. So declarations can be provided first, with definitions coming afterward.

      • Many people prefer to put “higher level” routines earlier in a source file and subroutines later. Since those “higher level” routines call various subroutines, the subroutines must be declared earlier.


      In C++, a user program never calls main, so it never needs a declaration before the definition. (Note that you could provide one if you wished. There is nothing special about a declaration of main in this regard.) In C, a program can call main. In that case, it does require that a declaration be visible before the call.



      Note that main does need to be known to the code that calls it. This is special code in what is typically called the C++ runtime startup code. The linker includes that code for you automatically when you are linking a C++ program with the appropriate linker options. Whatever language that code is written in, it has whatever declaration of main it needs in order to call it properly.






      share|improve this answer
























      • I think this is the most complete and correct answer so far. It's a pitty it won't get more popular because of the abundance of text. Could you add some tl;dr at the beginning? Also, I think, that it might not be obvious that the C++ compilers parse the code in such a sequential manner. Other languages overcome this issue by scanning declarations first and definitions later. C++ overcomes it only for class bodies.

        – pkubik
        Apr 1 at 23:26











      • Thank you for this! Indeed the most complete one. I can now understand this a bit more.

        – vnbrs
        Apr 2 at 11:54


















      46














      A definition of a function is also a declaration of a function.



      The purpose of a declaring a function is to make it known to the compiler. Declaring a function without defining it allows a function to be used in places where it is inconvenient to define it. For example:




      • If a function is used in a source file (A) other than the one it is defined in (B), we need to declare it in A (usually via a header that A includes, such as B.h).

      • If two or more functions may call each other, then we cannot define all those functions before the others—one of them has to be first. So declarations can be provided first, with definitions coming afterward.

      • Many people prefer to put “higher level” routines earlier in a source file and subroutines later. Since those “higher level” routines call various subroutines, the subroutines must be declared earlier.


      In C++, a user program never calls main, so it never needs a declaration before the definition. (Note that you could provide one if you wished. There is nothing special about a declaration of main in this regard.) In C, a program can call main. In that case, it does require that a declaration be visible before the call.



      Note that main does need to be known to the code that calls it. This is special code in what is typically called the C++ runtime startup code. The linker includes that code for you automatically when you are linking a C++ program with the appropriate linker options. Whatever language that code is written in, it has whatever declaration of main it needs in order to call it properly.






      share|improve this answer
























      • I think this is the most complete and correct answer so far. It's a pitty it won't get more popular because of the abundance of text. Could you add some tl;dr at the beginning? Also, I think, that it might not be obvious that the C++ compilers parse the code in such a sequential manner. Other languages overcome this issue by scanning declarations first and definitions later. C++ overcomes it only for class bodies.

        – pkubik
        Apr 1 at 23:26











      • Thank you for this! Indeed the most complete one. I can now understand this a bit more.

        – vnbrs
        Apr 2 at 11:54
















      46












      46








      46







      A definition of a function is also a declaration of a function.



      The purpose of a declaring a function is to make it known to the compiler. Declaring a function without defining it allows a function to be used in places where it is inconvenient to define it. For example:




      • If a function is used in a source file (A) other than the one it is defined in (B), we need to declare it in A (usually via a header that A includes, such as B.h).

      • If two or more functions may call each other, then we cannot define all those functions before the others—one of them has to be first. So declarations can be provided first, with definitions coming afterward.

      • Many people prefer to put “higher level” routines earlier in a source file and subroutines later. Since those “higher level” routines call various subroutines, the subroutines must be declared earlier.


      In C++, a user program never calls main, so it never needs a declaration before the definition. (Note that you could provide one if you wished. There is nothing special about a declaration of main in this regard.) In C, a program can call main. In that case, it does require that a declaration be visible before the call.



      Note that main does need to be known to the code that calls it. This is special code in what is typically called the C++ runtime startup code. The linker includes that code for you automatically when you are linking a C++ program with the appropriate linker options. Whatever language that code is written in, it has whatever declaration of main it needs in order to call it properly.






      share|improve this answer













      A definition of a function is also a declaration of a function.



      The purpose of a declaring a function is to make it known to the compiler. Declaring a function without defining it allows a function to be used in places where it is inconvenient to define it. For example:




      • If a function is used in a source file (A) other than the one it is defined in (B), we need to declare it in A (usually via a header that A includes, such as B.h).

      • If two or more functions may call each other, then we cannot define all those functions before the others—one of them has to be first. So declarations can be provided first, with definitions coming afterward.

      • Many people prefer to put “higher level” routines earlier in a source file and subroutines later. Since those “higher level” routines call various subroutines, the subroutines must be declared earlier.


      In C++, a user program never calls main, so it never needs a declaration before the definition. (Note that you could provide one if you wished. There is nothing special about a declaration of main in this regard.) In C, a program can call main. In that case, it does require that a declaration be visible before the call.



      Note that main does need to be known to the code that calls it. This is special code in what is typically called the C++ runtime startup code. The linker includes that code for you automatically when you are linking a C++ program with the appropriate linker options. Whatever language that code is written in, it has whatever declaration of main it needs in order to call it properly.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Apr 1 at 20:28









      Eric PostpischilEric Postpischil

      80.4k890169




      80.4k890169













      • I think this is the most complete and correct answer so far. It's a pitty it won't get more popular because of the abundance of text. Could you add some tl;dr at the beginning? Also, I think, that it might not be obvious that the C++ compilers parse the code in such a sequential manner. Other languages overcome this issue by scanning declarations first and definitions later. C++ overcomes it only for class bodies.

        – pkubik
        Apr 1 at 23:26











      • Thank you for this! Indeed the most complete one. I can now understand this a bit more.

        – vnbrs
        Apr 2 at 11:54





















      • I think this is the most complete and correct answer so far. It's a pitty it won't get more popular because of the abundance of text. Could you add some tl;dr at the beginning? Also, I think, that it might not be obvious that the C++ compilers parse the code in such a sequential manner. Other languages overcome this issue by scanning declarations first and definitions later. C++ overcomes it only for class bodies.

        – pkubik
        Apr 1 at 23:26











      • Thank you for this! Indeed the most complete one. I can now understand this a bit more.

        – vnbrs
        Apr 2 at 11:54



















      I think this is the most complete and correct answer so far. It's a pitty it won't get more popular because of the abundance of text. Could you add some tl;dr at the beginning? Also, I think, that it might not be obvious that the C++ compilers parse the code in such a sequential manner. Other languages overcome this issue by scanning declarations first and definitions later. C++ overcomes it only for class bodies.

      – pkubik
      Apr 1 at 23:26





      I think this is the most complete and correct answer so far. It's a pitty it won't get more popular because of the abundance of text. Could you add some tl;dr at the beginning? Also, I think, that it might not be obvious that the C++ compilers parse the code in such a sequential manner. Other languages overcome this issue by scanning declarations first and definitions later. C++ overcomes it only for class bodies.

      – pkubik
      Apr 1 at 23:26













      Thank you for this! Indeed the most complete one. I can now understand this a bit more.

      – vnbrs
      Apr 2 at 11:54







      Thank you for this! Indeed the most complete one. I can now understand this a bit more.

      – vnbrs
      Apr 2 at 11:54















      37















      I was taught that functions need declarations to be called.




      Indeed. A function must be declared before it can be called.




      why we don't add a declaration for the main function?




      Well, you didn't call main function. In fact, you must not call main at all1, so there is never a need to declare main before anything.



      Technically though, all definitions are also declarations, so your definition of main also declares main.





      Footnote 1: The C++ standard says it's undefined behaviour to call main from within the program.



      This allows C++ implementations to put special run-once startup code at the top of main, if they aren't able to have it run earlier from hooks in the startup code that normally calls main. Some real implementations do in fact do this, e.g. calling a fast-math function that sets some FPU flags like denormals-are-zero.



      On a hypothetical implementation, calling main could result in fun things like re-running constructors for all static variables, re-initializing the data structures used by new/delete to keep track of allocations, or other total breakage of your program. Or it might not cause any problem at all. Undefined behaviour doesn't mean it has to fail on every implementation.






      share|improve this answer






























        37















        I was taught that functions need declarations to be called.




        Indeed. A function must be declared before it can be called.




        why we don't add a declaration for the main function?




        Well, you didn't call main function. In fact, you must not call main at all1, so there is never a need to declare main before anything.



        Technically though, all definitions are also declarations, so your definition of main also declares main.





        Footnote 1: The C++ standard says it's undefined behaviour to call main from within the program.



        This allows C++ implementations to put special run-once startup code at the top of main, if they aren't able to have it run earlier from hooks in the startup code that normally calls main. Some real implementations do in fact do this, e.g. calling a fast-math function that sets some FPU flags like denormals-are-zero.



        On a hypothetical implementation, calling main could result in fun things like re-running constructors for all static variables, re-initializing the data structures used by new/delete to keep track of allocations, or other total breakage of your program. Or it might not cause any problem at all. Undefined behaviour doesn't mean it has to fail on every implementation.






        share|improve this answer




























          37












          37








          37








          I was taught that functions need declarations to be called.




          Indeed. A function must be declared before it can be called.




          why we don't add a declaration for the main function?




          Well, you didn't call main function. In fact, you must not call main at all1, so there is never a need to declare main before anything.



          Technically though, all definitions are also declarations, so your definition of main also declares main.





          Footnote 1: The C++ standard says it's undefined behaviour to call main from within the program.



          This allows C++ implementations to put special run-once startup code at the top of main, if they aren't able to have it run earlier from hooks in the startup code that normally calls main. Some real implementations do in fact do this, e.g. calling a fast-math function that sets some FPU flags like denormals-are-zero.



          On a hypothetical implementation, calling main could result in fun things like re-running constructors for all static variables, re-initializing the data structures used by new/delete to keep track of allocations, or other total breakage of your program. Or it might not cause any problem at all. Undefined behaviour doesn't mean it has to fail on every implementation.






          share|improve this answer
















          I was taught that functions need declarations to be called.




          Indeed. A function must be declared before it can be called.




          why we don't add a declaration for the main function?




          Well, you didn't call main function. In fact, you must not call main at all1, so there is never a need to declare main before anything.



          Technically though, all definitions are also declarations, so your definition of main also declares main.





          Footnote 1: The C++ standard says it's undefined behaviour to call main from within the program.



          This allows C++ implementations to put special run-once startup code at the top of main, if they aren't able to have it run earlier from hooks in the startup code that normally calls main. Some real implementations do in fact do this, e.g. calling a fast-math function that sets some FPU flags like denormals-are-zero.



          On a hypothetical implementation, calling main could result in fun things like re-running constructors for all static variables, re-initializing the data structures used by new/delete to keep track of allocations, or other total breakage of your program. Or it might not cause any problem at all. Undefined behaviour doesn't mean it has to fail on every implementation.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Apr 2 at 10:49









          Peter Cordes

          134k18203342




          134k18203342










          answered Apr 1 at 14:51









          eerorikaeerorika

          89.4k664136




          89.4k664136























              34














              The prototype is required if you want to call the function, but it's not yet available, like sum in your case.



              You must not call main yourself, so there is no need to have a prototype. It's even a bad a idea to write a prototype.






              share|improve this answer


























              • It is not a "bad idea" at all to call main. C allows it; C++ makes it undefined for reasons which have nothing to do with it being a bad idea.

                – Kaz
                Apr 2 at 15:06






              • 9





                @Kaz It's a bad idea to do something whose behaviour is undefined.

                – eerorika
                Apr 2 at 15:19











              • @eeroika That's a circular argument. Recursive main that was well-defined came first. The answer says that not only must you not do this, but it's even a bad idea.That implies that it's a bad idea for additional reasons other than it being prohibited, or perhaps that it's prohibited due to being a bad idea, which is not so. This is just a feature of C that the C++ dialect fails to implement.

                – Kaz
                Apr 2 at 15:34






              • 1





                A C++ compiler is allowed to emit the translated image main as if it were extern "C" linkage. Or to substitute a different symbol for its name entirely, like __main or whatever. Yet, it's also allowed to ignore these considerations when compiling main, and treat it just as another function, so that the main symbol is declared in the ordinary way. The recursive call to main may expect to be calling a C++ function called main with ordinary C++ linkage, that supports overloading and all, yet there need not be such a symbol at all in the translation due to the special treatment.

                – Kaz
                Apr 2 at 15:39






              • 1





                @MatthieuBrucher Ah, OK; I misread that. The prototype could serve no useful purpose in C++.

                – Kaz
                Apr 2 at 15:40
















              34














              The prototype is required if you want to call the function, but it's not yet available, like sum in your case.



              You must not call main yourself, so there is no need to have a prototype. It's even a bad a idea to write a prototype.






              share|improve this answer


























              • It is not a "bad idea" at all to call main. C allows it; C++ makes it undefined for reasons which have nothing to do with it being a bad idea.

                – Kaz
                Apr 2 at 15:06






              • 9





                @Kaz It's a bad idea to do something whose behaviour is undefined.

                – eerorika
                Apr 2 at 15:19











              • @eeroika That's a circular argument. Recursive main that was well-defined came first. The answer says that not only must you not do this, but it's even a bad idea.That implies that it's a bad idea for additional reasons other than it being prohibited, or perhaps that it's prohibited due to being a bad idea, which is not so. This is just a feature of C that the C++ dialect fails to implement.

                – Kaz
                Apr 2 at 15:34






              • 1





                A C++ compiler is allowed to emit the translated image main as if it were extern "C" linkage. Or to substitute a different symbol for its name entirely, like __main or whatever. Yet, it's also allowed to ignore these considerations when compiling main, and treat it just as another function, so that the main symbol is declared in the ordinary way. The recursive call to main may expect to be calling a C++ function called main with ordinary C++ linkage, that supports overloading and all, yet there need not be such a symbol at all in the translation due to the special treatment.

                – Kaz
                Apr 2 at 15:39






              • 1





                @MatthieuBrucher Ah, OK; I misread that. The prototype could serve no useful purpose in C++.

                – Kaz
                Apr 2 at 15:40














              34












              34








              34







              The prototype is required if you want to call the function, but it's not yet available, like sum in your case.



              You must not call main yourself, so there is no need to have a prototype. It's even a bad a idea to write a prototype.






              share|improve this answer















              The prototype is required if you want to call the function, but it's not yet available, like sum in your case.



              You must not call main yourself, so there is no need to have a prototype. It's even a bad a idea to write a prototype.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Apr 2 at 15:42

























              answered Apr 1 at 14:39









              Matthieu BrucherMatthieu Brucher

              17.4k42345




              17.4k42345













              • It is not a "bad idea" at all to call main. C allows it; C++ makes it undefined for reasons which have nothing to do with it being a bad idea.

                – Kaz
                Apr 2 at 15:06






              • 9





                @Kaz It's a bad idea to do something whose behaviour is undefined.

                – eerorika
                Apr 2 at 15:19











              • @eeroika That's a circular argument. Recursive main that was well-defined came first. The answer says that not only must you not do this, but it's even a bad idea.That implies that it's a bad idea for additional reasons other than it being prohibited, or perhaps that it's prohibited due to being a bad idea, which is not so. This is just a feature of C that the C++ dialect fails to implement.

                – Kaz
                Apr 2 at 15:34






              • 1





                A C++ compiler is allowed to emit the translated image main as if it were extern "C" linkage. Or to substitute a different symbol for its name entirely, like __main or whatever. Yet, it's also allowed to ignore these considerations when compiling main, and treat it just as another function, so that the main symbol is declared in the ordinary way. The recursive call to main may expect to be calling a C++ function called main with ordinary C++ linkage, that supports overloading and all, yet there need not be such a symbol at all in the translation due to the special treatment.

                – Kaz
                Apr 2 at 15:39






              • 1





                @MatthieuBrucher Ah, OK; I misread that. The prototype could serve no useful purpose in C++.

                – Kaz
                Apr 2 at 15:40



















              • It is not a "bad idea" at all to call main. C allows it; C++ makes it undefined for reasons which have nothing to do with it being a bad idea.

                – Kaz
                Apr 2 at 15:06






              • 9





                @Kaz It's a bad idea to do something whose behaviour is undefined.

                – eerorika
                Apr 2 at 15:19











              • @eeroika That's a circular argument. Recursive main that was well-defined came first. The answer says that not only must you not do this, but it's even a bad idea.That implies that it's a bad idea for additional reasons other than it being prohibited, or perhaps that it's prohibited due to being a bad idea, which is not so. This is just a feature of C that the C++ dialect fails to implement.

                – Kaz
                Apr 2 at 15:34






              • 1





                A C++ compiler is allowed to emit the translated image main as if it were extern "C" linkage. Or to substitute a different symbol for its name entirely, like __main or whatever. Yet, it's also allowed to ignore these considerations when compiling main, and treat it just as another function, so that the main symbol is declared in the ordinary way. The recursive call to main may expect to be calling a C++ function called main with ordinary C++ linkage, that supports overloading and all, yet there need not be such a symbol at all in the translation due to the special treatment.

                – Kaz
                Apr 2 at 15:39






              • 1





                @MatthieuBrucher Ah, OK; I misread that. The prototype could serve no useful purpose in C++.

                – Kaz
                Apr 2 at 15:40

















              It is not a "bad idea" at all to call main. C allows it; C++ makes it undefined for reasons which have nothing to do with it being a bad idea.

              – Kaz
              Apr 2 at 15:06





              It is not a "bad idea" at all to call main. C allows it; C++ makes it undefined for reasons which have nothing to do with it being a bad idea.

              – Kaz
              Apr 2 at 15:06




              9




              9





              @Kaz It's a bad idea to do something whose behaviour is undefined.

              – eerorika
              Apr 2 at 15:19





              @Kaz It's a bad idea to do something whose behaviour is undefined.

              – eerorika
              Apr 2 at 15:19













              @eeroika That's a circular argument. Recursive main that was well-defined came first. The answer says that not only must you not do this, but it's even a bad idea.That implies that it's a bad idea for additional reasons other than it being prohibited, or perhaps that it's prohibited due to being a bad idea, which is not so. This is just a feature of C that the C++ dialect fails to implement.

              – Kaz
              Apr 2 at 15:34





              @eeroika That's a circular argument. Recursive main that was well-defined came first. The answer says that not only must you not do this, but it's even a bad idea.That implies that it's a bad idea for additional reasons other than it being prohibited, or perhaps that it's prohibited due to being a bad idea, which is not so. This is just a feature of C that the C++ dialect fails to implement.

              – Kaz
              Apr 2 at 15:34




              1




              1





              A C++ compiler is allowed to emit the translated image main as if it were extern "C" linkage. Or to substitute a different symbol for its name entirely, like __main or whatever. Yet, it's also allowed to ignore these considerations when compiling main, and treat it just as another function, so that the main symbol is declared in the ordinary way. The recursive call to main may expect to be calling a C++ function called main with ordinary C++ linkage, that supports overloading and all, yet there need not be such a symbol at all in the translation due to the special treatment.

              – Kaz
              Apr 2 at 15:39





              A C++ compiler is allowed to emit the translated image main as if it were extern "C" linkage. Or to substitute a different symbol for its name entirely, like __main or whatever. Yet, it's also allowed to ignore these considerations when compiling main, and treat it just as another function, so that the main symbol is declared in the ordinary way. The recursive call to main may expect to be calling a C++ function called main with ordinary C++ linkage, that supports overloading and all, yet there need not be such a symbol at all in the translation due to the special treatment.

              – Kaz
              Apr 2 at 15:39




              1




              1





              @MatthieuBrucher Ah, OK; I misread that. The prototype could serve no useful purpose in C++.

              – Kaz
              Apr 2 at 15:40





              @MatthieuBrucher Ah, OK; I misread that. The prototype could serve no useful purpose in C++.

              – Kaz
              Apr 2 at 15:40











              25














              No, the compiler does not need a forward declaration for main().



              main() is a special function in C++.



              Some important things to remember about main() are:




              1. The linker requires that one and only one main() function exist when creating an executable program.

              2. The compiler expects a main() function in one of the following two forms:


              int main () { /* body */ } 
              int main (int argc, char *argv) { /* body */ }


              where body is zero or more statements



              An additional acceptable form is implementation specific and provides a list of the environment variables at the time the function is called:



              int main (int argc, char* argv, char *envp) { /* body */ }


              The coder must provide the 'definition' of main using one of these acceptable forms, but the coder does not need to provide a declaration. The coded definiton is accepted by the compiler as the declaration of main().




              1. If no return statement is provided, the compiler will provide a return 0; as the last statement in the function body.


              As an aside, there is sometimes confusion about whether a C++ program can make a call to main(). This is not recommended. The C++17 draft states that main() "shall not be used within a program." In other words, cannot be called from within a program. See e.g. Working Draft Standard for C++ Programming Language, dated "2017-03-21", Paragraph 6.6.1.3, page 66. I realize that some compilers support this (including mine), but the next version of the compiler could modify or remove that behavior as the standard uses the term "shall not".






              share|improve this answer


























              • Also note that the standard allows other implementation-defined signatures for main besides the two you listed here. A common option is to add a 3rd argument (after argv) that contains the environment variables (using the same method as extern char** environ)

                – SJL
                Apr 1 at 19:51











              • @SJL: Absolutely! I have only listed the ones that "must" be implemented by the compiler. The environ is also very helpful.

                – Gardener
                Apr 1 at 19:52






              • 8





                "compiler does not need a declaration for main()" Every definition is a declaration, so I think the wording needs to be adjusted. "compiler declares it as one of the following two functions" Why "compiler declares"? We always provide a definition for main ourselves.

                – HolyBlackCat
                Apr 1 at 20:02








              • 1





                @HolyBlackCat: I see your point. Wording is important. Even if I change it, without quoting the entire standard, there will not be a complete answer. The answer is meant to be simple. See what you think of this update.

                – Gardener
                Apr 1 at 20:14






              • 6





                There's nothing special about the main function with regards to (forward) declaration. That's simply a red herring. Rather, we don't need to forward declare it since we're not referring to it before its definition. That's all.

                – Konrad Rudolph
                Apr 1 at 22:19
















              25














              No, the compiler does not need a forward declaration for main().



              main() is a special function in C++.



              Some important things to remember about main() are:




              1. The linker requires that one and only one main() function exist when creating an executable program.

              2. The compiler expects a main() function in one of the following two forms:


              int main () { /* body */ } 
              int main (int argc, char *argv) { /* body */ }


              where body is zero or more statements



              An additional acceptable form is implementation specific and provides a list of the environment variables at the time the function is called:



              int main (int argc, char* argv, char *envp) { /* body */ }


              The coder must provide the 'definition' of main using one of these acceptable forms, but the coder does not need to provide a declaration. The coded definiton is accepted by the compiler as the declaration of main().




              1. If no return statement is provided, the compiler will provide a return 0; as the last statement in the function body.


              As an aside, there is sometimes confusion about whether a C++ program can make a call to main(). This is not recommended. The C++17 draft states that main() "shall not be used within a program." In other words, cannot be called from within a program. See e.g. Working Draft Standard for C++ Programming Language, dated "2017-03-21", Paragraph 6.6.1.3, page 66. I realize that some compilers support this (including mine), but the next version of the compiler could modify or remove that behavior as the standard uses the term "shall not".






              share|improve this answer


























              • Also note that the standard allows other implementation-defined signatures for main besides the two you listed here. A common option is to add a 3rd argument (after argv) that contains the environment variables (using the same method as extern char** environ)

                – SJL
                Apr 1 at 19:51











              • @SJL: Absolutely! I have only listed the ones that "must" be implemented by the compiler. The environ is also very helpful.

                – Gardener
                Apr 1 at 19:52






              • 8





                "compiler does not need a declaration for main()" Every definition is a declaration, so I think the wording needs to be adjusted. "compiler declares it as one of the following two functions" Why "compiler declares"? We always provide a definition for main ourselves.

                – HolyBlackCat
                Apr 1 at 20:02








              • 1





                @HolyBlackCat: I see your point. Wording is important. Even if I change it, without quoting the entire standard, there will not be a complete answer. The answer is meant to be simple. See what you think of this update.

                – Gardener
                Apr 1 at 20:14






              • 6





                There's nothing special about the main function with regards to (forward) declaration. That's simply a red herring. Rather, we don't need to forward declare it since we're not referring to it before its definition. That's all.

                – Konrad Rudolph
                Apr 1 at 22:19














              25












              25








              25







              No, the compiler does not need a forward declaration for main().



              main() is a special function in C++.



              Some important things to remember about main() are:




              1. The linker requires that one and only one main() function exist when creating an executable program.

              2. The compiler expects a main() function in one of the following two forms:


              int main () { /* body */ } 
              int main (int argc, char *argv) { /* body */ }


              where body is zero or more statements



              An additional acceptable form is implementation specific and provides a list of the environment variables at the time the function is called:



              int main (int argc, char* argv, char *envp) { /* body */ }


              The coder must provide the 'definition' of main using one of these acceptable forms, but the coder does not need to provide a declaration. The coded definiton is accepted by the compiler as the declaration of main().




              1. If no return statement is provided, the compiler will provide a return 0; as the last statement in the function body.


              As an aside, there is sometimes confusion about whether a C++ program can make a call to main(). This is not recommended. The C++17 draft states that main() "shall not be used within a program." In other words, cannot be called from within a program. See e.g. Working Draft Standard for C++ Programming Language, dated "2017-03-21", Paragraph 6.6.1.3, page 66. I realize that some compilers support this (including mine), but the next version of the compiler could modify or remove that behavior as the standard uses the term "shall not".






              share|improve this answer















              No, the compiler does not need a forward declaration for main().



              main() is a special function in C++.



              Some important things to remember about main() are:




              1. The linker requires that one and only one main() function exist when creating an executable program.

              2. The compiler expects a main() function in one of the following two forms:


              int main () { /* body */ } 
              int main (int argc, char *argv) { /* body */ }


              where body is zero or more statements



              An additional acceptable form is implementation specific and provides a list of the environment variables at the time the function is called:



              int main (int argc, char* argv, char *envp) { /* body */ }


              The coder must provide the 'definition' of main using one of these acceptable forms, but the coder does not need to provide a declaration. The coded definiton is accepted by the compiler as the declaration of main().




              1. If no return statement is provided, the compiler will provide a return 0; as the last statement in the function body.


              As an aside, there is sometimes confusion about whether a C++ program can make a call to main(). This is not recommended. The C++17 draft states that main() "shall not be used within a program." In other words, cannot be called from within a program. See e.g. Working Draft Standard for C++ Programming Language, dated "2017-03-21", Paragraph 6.6.1.3, page 66. I realize that some compilers support this (including mine), but the next version of the compiler could modify or remove that behavior as the standard uses the term "shall not".







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Apr 2 at 10:02









              iMalinowski

              10914




              10914










              answered Apr 1 at 14:58









              GardenerGardener

              1,5101616




              1,5101616













              • Also note that the standard allows other implementation-defined signatures for main besides the two you listed here. A common option is to add a 3rd argument (after argv) that contains the environment variables (using the same method as extern char** environ)

                – SJL
                Apr 1 at 19:51











              • @SJL: Absolutely! I have only listed the ones that "must" be implemented by the compiler. The environ is also very helpful.

                – Gardener
                Apr 1 at 19:52






              • 8





                "compiler does not need a declaration for main()" Every definition is a declaration, so I think the wording needs to be adjusted. "compiler declares it as one of the following two functions" Why "compiler declares"? We always provide a definition for main ourselves.

                – HolyBlackCat
                Apr 1 at 20:02








              • 1





                @HolyBlackCat: I see your point. Wording is important. Even if I change it, without quoting the entire standard, there will not be a complete answer. The answer is meant to be simple. See what you think of this update.

                – Gardener
                Apr 1 at 20:14






              • 6





                There's nothing special about the main function with regards to (forward) declaration. That's simply a red herring. Rather, we don't need to forward declare it since we're not referring to it before its definition. That's all.

                – Konrad Rudolph
                Apr 1 at 22:19



















              • Also note that the standard allows other implementation-defined signatures for main besides the two you listed here. A common option is to add a 3rd argument (after argv) that contains the environment variables (using the same method as extern char** environ)

                – SJL
                Apr 1 at 19:51











              • @SJL: Absolutely! I have only listed the ones that "must" be implemented by the compiler. The environ is also very helpful.

                – Gardener
                Apr 1 at 19:52






              • 8





                "compiler does not need a declaration for main()" Every definition is a declaration, so I think the wording needs to be adjusted. "compiler declares it as one of the following two functions" Why "compiler declares"? We always provide a definition for main ourselves.

                – HolyBlackCat
                Apr 1 at 20:02








              • 1





                @HolyBlackCat: I see your point. Wording is important. Even if I change it, without quoting the entire standard, there will not be a complete answer. The answer is meant to be simple. See what you think of this update.

                – Gardener
                Apr 1 at 20:14






              • 6





                There's nothing special about the main function with regards to (forward) declaration. That's simply a red herring. Rather, we don't need to forward declare it since we're not referring to it before its definition. That's all.

                – Konrad Rudolph
                Apr 1 at 22:19

















              Also note that the standard allows other implementation-defined signatures for main besides the two you listed here. A common option is to add a 3rd argument (after argv) that contains the environment variables (using the same method as extern char** environ)

              – SJL
              Apr 1 at 19:51





              Also note that the standard allows other implementation-defined signatures for main besides the two you listed here. A common option is to add a 3rd argument (after argv) that contains the environment variables (using the same method as extern char** environ)

              – SJL
              Apr 1 at 19:51













              @SJL: Absolutely! I have only listed the ones that "must" be implemented by the compiler. The environ is also very helpful.

              – Gardener
              Apr 1 at 19:52





              @SJL: Absolutely! I have only listed the ones that "must" be implemented by the compiler. The environ is also very helpful.

              – Gardener
              Apr 1 at 19:52




              8




              8





              "compiler does not need a declaration for main()" Every definition is a declaration, so I think the wording needs to be adjusted. "compiler declares it as one of the following two functions" Why "compiler declares"? We always provide a definition for main ourselves.

              – HolyBlackCat
              Apr 1 at 20:02







              "compiler does not need a declaration for main()" Every definition is a declaration, so I think the wording needs to be adjusted. "compiler declares it as one of the following two functions" Why "compiler declares"? We always provide a definition for main ourselves.

              – HolyBlackCat
              Apr 1 at 20:02






              1




              1





              @HolyBlackCat: I see your point. Wording is important. Even if I change it, without quoting the entire standard, there will not be a complete answer. The answer is meant to be simple. See what you think of this update.

              – Gardener
              Apr 1 at 20:14





              @HolyBlackCat: I see your point. Wording is important. Even if I change it, without quoting the entire standard, there will not be a complete answer. The answer is meant to be simple. See what you think of this update.

              – Gardener
              Apr 1 at 20:14




              6




              6





              There's nothing special about the main function with regards to (forward) declaration. That's simply a red herring. Rather, we don't need to forward declare it since we're not referring to it before its definition. That's all.

              – Konrad Rudolph
              Apr 1 at 22:19





              There's nothing special about the main function with regards to (forward) declaration. That's simply a red herring. Rather, we don't need to forward declare it since we're not referring to it before its definition. That's all.

              – Konrad Rudolph
              Apr 1 at 22:19











              10














              It is illegal to call main from inside your program. That means the only thing that is going to call it is the runtime and the compiler/linker can handle setting that up.This means you do not need a prototype for main.






              share|improve this answer




























                10














                It is illegal to call main from inside your program. That means the only thing that is going to call it is the runtime and the compiler/linker can handle setting that up.This means you do not need a prototype for main.






                share|improve this answer


























                  10












                  10








                  10







                  It is illegal to call main from inside your program. That means the only thing that is going to call it is the runtime and the compiler/linker can handle setting that up.This means you do not need a prototype for main.






                  share|improve this answer













                  It is illegal to call main from inside your program. That means the only thing that is going to call it is the runtime and the compiler/linker can handle setting that up.This means you do not need a prototype for main.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Apr 1 at 14:41









                  NathanOliverNathanOliver

                  98.2k16138217




                  98.2k16138217























                      7














                      A definition of a function also implicitly declares it. If you need to reference a function before it is defined you need to declare it before you use it.



                      So writing the following is also valid:



                      int sum(int x, int y) {
                      return x + y;
                      }

                      int main() {
                      std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
                      return 0;
                      }


                      If you use a declaration in one file to make a function known to the compiler before it is defined, then its definition has to be known at linking time:



                      main.cpp



                      int sum(int x, int y);

                      int main() {
                      std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
                      return 0;
                      }


                      sum.cpp



                      int sum(int x, int y) {
                      return x + y;
                      }


                      Or sum could have its origin in a library, so you do not even compile it yourself.



                      The main function is not used/referenced in your code anywhere, so there is no need to add the declaration of main anywhere.



                      Before and after your main function the c++ library might execute some init and cleanup steps, and will call your main function. If that part of the library would be represented as c++ code then it would contain a declaration of int main() so that that it could be compiled. That code could look like this:



                      int main();

                      int __main() {
                      __startup_runtime();

                      main();

                      __cleanup_runtime();
                      }


                      But then you again have the same problem with __main so at some point there is no c++ anymore and a certain function (main) just represents the entry point of your code.






                      share|improve this answer


























                      • C++ makes it UB to call main from inside the program, so C++ compilers can put those startup/cleanup calls right into the real main if they want. This rule lets C++ compilers work on top of C environments, for example, giving somewhere for static constructors to be called from if there's no other mechanism a compiler can use. (Compilers also have to recognize main as a special function name to give it an implicit return 0.)

                        – Peter Cordes
                        Apr 2 at 11:06











                      • @PeterCordes from the perspective of the programmer it is UB to call the main function due to the the standard. But how the compile vendors or the os handles main is implementation dependent. So in theory the compiled result of the main could look like a regular function that is called by the run-time, or it could not exists and as you said, the compilers can put those startup/cleanup calls right at the entry point of the application around the code that is shown in the main.

                        – t.niese
                        Apr 2 at 11:40











                      • Yup, in most implementations it is just a normal function (but with an implicit extern "C" to not do C++ name mangling on it, so the CRT startup code can link to it regardless of function signature), with real init work done in CRT code and/or from dynamic linker hooks. But like I commented Joshua's answer, ICC (Intel's compiler) does in fact add some startup code inside main itself (godbolt.org/z/oWlmlc), including setting DAZ and FTZ to disable subnormals for its default of -ffast-math. gcc/clang link different CRT startup files for fast-math or not.

                        – Peter Cordes
                        Apr 2 at 12:13
















                      7














                      A definition of a function also implicitly declares it. If you need to reference a function before it is defined you need to declare it before you use it.



                      So writing the following is also valid:



                      int sum(int x, int y) {
                      return x + y;
                      }

                      int main() {
                      std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
                      return 0;
                      }


                      If you use a declaration in one file to make a function known to the compiler before it is defined, then its definition has to be known at linking time:



                      main.cpp



                      int sum(int x, int y);

                      int main() {
                      std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
                      return 0;
                      }


                      sum.cpp



                      int sum(int x, int y) {
                      return x + y;
                      }


                      Or sum could have its origin in a library, so you do not even compile it yourself.



                      The main function is not used/referenced in your code anywhere, so there is no need to add the declaration of main anywhere.



                      Before and after your main function the c++ library might execute some init and cleanup steps, and will call your main function. If that part of the library would be represented as c++ code then it would contain a declaration of int main() so that that it could be compiled. That code could look like this:



                      int main();

                      int __main() {
                      __startup_runtime();

                      main();

                      __cleanup_runtime();
                      }


                      But then you again have the same problem with __main so at some point there is no c++ anymore and a certain function (main) just represents the entry point of your code.






                      share|improve this answer


























                      • C++ makes it UB to call main from inside the program, so C++ compilers can put those startup/cleanup calls right into the real main if they want. This rule lets C++ compilers work on top of C environments, for example, giving somewhere for static constructors to be called from if there's no other mechanism a compiler can use. (Compilers also have to recognize main as a special function name to give it an implicit return 0.)

                        – Peter Cordes
                        Apr 2 at 11:06











                      • @PeterCordes from the perspective of the programmer it is UB to call the main function due to the the standard. But how the compile vendors or the os handles main is implementation dependent. So in theory the compiled result of the main could look like a regular function that is called by the run-time, or it could not exists and as you said, the compilers can put those startup/cleanup calls right at the entry point of the application around the code that is shown in the main.

                        – t.niese
                        Apr 2 at 11:40











                      • Yup, in most implementations it is just a normal function (but with an implicit extern "C" to not do C++ name mangling on it, so the CRT startup code can link to it regardless of function signature), with real init work done in CRT code and/or from dynamic linker hooks. But like I commented Joshua's answer, ICC (Intel's compiler) does in fact add some startup code inside main itself (godbolt.org/z/oWlmlc), including setting DAZ and FTZ to disable subnormals for its default of -ffast-math. gcc/clang link different CRT startup files for fast-math or not.

                        – Peter Cordes
                        Apr 2 at 12:13














                      7












                      7








                      7







                      A definition of a function also implicitly declares it. If you need to reference a function before it is defined you need to declare it before you use it.



                      So writing the following is also valid:



                      int sum(int x, int y) {
                      return x + y;
                      }

                      int main() {
                      std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
                      return 0;
                      }


                      If you use a declaration in one file to make a function known to the compiler before it is defined, then its definition has to be known at linking time:



                      main.cpp



                      int sum(int x, int y);

                      int main() {
                      std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
                      return 0;
                      }


                      sum.cpp



                      int sum(int x, int y) {
                      return x + y;
                      }


                      Or sum could have its origin in a library, so you do not even compile it yourself.



                      The main function is not used/referenced in your code anywhere, so there is no need to add the declaration of main anywhere.



                      Before and after your main function the c++ library might execute some init and cleanup steps, and will call your main function. If that part of the library would be represented as c++ code then it would contain a declaration of int main() so that that it could be compiled. That code could look like this:



                      int main();

                      int __main() {
                      __startup_runtime();

                      main();

                      __cleanup_runtime();
                      }


                      But then you again have the same problem with __main so at some point there is no c++ anymore and a certain function (main) just represents the entry point of your code.






                      share|improve this answer















                      A definition of a function also implicitly declares it. If you need to reference a function before it is defined you need to declare it before you use it.



                      So writing the following is also valid:



                      int sum(int x, int y) {
                      return x + y;
                      }

                      int main() {
                      std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
                      return 0;
                      }


                      If you use a declaration in one file to make a function known to the compiler before it is defined, then its definition has to be known at linking time:



                      main.cpp



                      int sum(int x, int y);

                      int main() {
                      std::cout << "The result is " << sum(1, 2);
                      return 0;
                      }


                      sum.cpp



                      int sum(int x, int y) {
                      return x + y;
                      }


                      Or sum could have its origin in a library, so you do not even compile it yourself.



                      The main function is not used/referenced in your code anywhere, so there is no need to add the declaration of main anywhere.



                      Before and after your main function the c++ library might execute some init and cleanup steps, and will call your main function. If that part of the library would be represented as c++ code then it would contain a declaration of int main() so that that it could be compiled. That code could look like this:



                      int main();

                      int __main() {
                      __startup_runtime();

                      main();

                      __cleanup_runtime();
                      }


                      But then you again have the same problem with __main so at some point there is no c++ anymore and a certain function (main) just represents the entry point of your code.







                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited Apr 1 at 20:49

























                      answered Apr 1 at 20:29









                      t.nieset.niese

                      22.7k64066




                      22.7k64066













                      • C++ makes it UB to call main from inside the program, so C++ compilers can put those startup/cleanup calls right into the real main if they want. This rule lets C++ compilers work on top of C environments, for example, giving somewhere for static constructors to be called from if there's no other mechanism a compiler can use. (Compilers also have to recognize main as a special function name to give it an implicit return 0.)

                        – Peter Cordes
                        Apr 2 at 11:06











                      • @PeterCordes from the perspective of the programmer it is UB to call the main function due to the the standard. But how the compile vendors or the os handles main is implementation dependent. So in theory the compiled result of the main could look like a regular function that is called by the run-time, or it could not exists and as you said, the compilers can put those startup/cleanup calls right at the entry point of the application around the code that is shown in the main.

                        – t.niese
                        Apr 2 at 11:40











                      • Yup, in most implementations it is just a normal function (but with an implicit extern "C" to not do C++ name mangling on it, so the CRT startup code can link to it regardless of function signature), with real init work done in CRT code and/or from dynamic linker hooks. But like I commented Joshua's answer, ICC (Intel's compiler) does in fact add some startup code inside main itself (godbolt.org/z/oWlmlc), including setting DAZ and FTZ to disable subnormals for its default of -ffast-math. gcc/clang link different CRT startup files for fast-math or not.

                        – Peter Cordes
                        Apr 2 at 12:13



















                      • C++ makes it UB to call main from inside the program, so C++ compilers can put those startup/cleanup calls right into the real main if they want. This rule lets C++ compilers work on top of C environments, for example, giving somewhere for static constructors to be called from if there's no other mechanism a compiler can use. (Compilers also have to recognize main as a special function name to give it an implicit return 0.)

                        – Peter Cordes
                        Apr 2 at 11:06











                      • @PeterCordes from the perspective of the programmer it is UB to call the main function due to the the standard. But how the compile vendors or the os handles main is implementation dependent. So in theory the compiled result of the main could look like a regular function that is called by the run-time, or it could not exists and as you said, the compilers can put those startup/cleanup calls right at the entry point of the application around the code that is shown in the main.

                        – t.niese
                        Apr 2 at 11:40











                      • Yup, in most implementations it is just a normal function (but with an implicit extern "C" to not do C++ name mangling on it, so the CRT startup code can link to it regardless of function signature), with real init work done in CRT code and/or from dynamic linker hooks. But like I commented Joshua's answer, ICC (Intel's compiler) does in fact add some startup code inside main itself (godbolt.org/z/oWlmlc), including setting DAZ and FTZ to disable subnormals for its default of -ffast-math. gcc/clang link different CRT startup files for fast-math or not.

                        – Peter Cordes
                        Apr 2 at 12:13

















                      C++ makes it UB to call main from inside the program, so C++ compilers can put those startup/cleanup calls right into the real main if they want. This rule lets C++ compilers work on top of C environments, for example, giving somewhere for static constructors to be called from if there's no other mechanism a compiler can use. (Compilers also have to recognize main as a special function name to give it an implicit return 0.)

                      – Peter Cordes
                      Apr 2 at 11:06





                      C++ makes it UB to call main from inside the program, so C++ compilers can put those startup/cleanup calls right into the real main if they want. This rule lets C++ compilers work on top of C environments, for example, giving somewhere for static constructors to be called from if there's no other mechanism a compiler can use. (Compilers also have to recognize main as a special function name to give it an implicit return 0.)

                      – Peter Cordes
                      Apr 2 at 11:06













                      @PeterCordes from the perspective of the programmer it is UB to call the main function due to the the standard. But how the compile vendors or the os handles main is implementation dependent. So in theory the compiled result of the main could look like a regular function that is called by the run-time, or it could not exists and as you said, the compilers can put those startup/cleanup calls right at the entry point of the application around the code that is shown in the main.

                      – t.niese
                      Apr 2 at 11:40





                      @PeterCordes from the perspective of the programmer it is UB to call the main function due to the the standard. But how the compile vendors or the os handles main is implementation dependent. So in theory the compiled result of the main could look like a regular function that is called by the run-time, or it could not exists and as you said, the compilers can put those startup/cleanup calls right at the entry point of the application around the code that is shown in the main.

                      – t.niese
                      Apr 2 at 11:40













                      Yup, in most implementations it is just a normal function (but with an implicit extern "C" to not do C++ name mangling on it, so the CRT startup code can link to it regardless of function signature), with real init work done in CRT code and/or from dynamic linker hooks. But like I commented Joshua's answer, ICC (Intel's compiler) does in fact add some startup code inside main itself (godbolt.org/z/oWlmlc), including setting DAZ and FTZ to disable subnormals for its default of -ffast-math. gcc/clang link different CRT startup files for fast-math or not.

                      – Peter Cordes
                      Apr 2 at 12:13





                      Yup, in most implementations it is just a normal function (but with an implicit extern "C" to not do C++ name mangling on it, so the CRT startup code can link to it regardless of function signature), with real init work done in CRT code and/or from dynamic linker hooks. But like I commented Joshua's answer, ICC (Intel's compiler) does in fact add some startup code inside main itself (godbolt.org/z/oWlmlc), including setting DAZ and FTZ to disable subnormals for its default of -ffast-math. gcc/clang link different CRT startup files for fast-math or not.

                      – Peter Cordes
                      Apr 2 at 12:13











                      5














                      Nope. You can't call it anyway.



                      You only need forward declarations for functions called before they are defined. You need external declarations (which look exactly like forward declarations on purpose) for functions defined in other files.



                      But you can't call main in C++ so you don't need one. This is because the C++ compiler is allowed to modify main to do global initialization.



                      [I looked at crt0.c and it does have a declaration for main but that's neither here nor there].






                      share|improve this answer


























                      • You can call main, it's just typically bad practice.

                        – Cruz Jean
                        Apr 1 at 14:40






                      • 8





                        @CruzJean not just a bad practice, it's undefined behavior as far as I know

                        – Guillaume Racicot
                        Apr 1 at 14:41






                      • 5





                        @CruzJean Not bad practice. Calling it invokes undefined behavior.

                        – Algirdas Preidžius
                        Apr 1 at 14:42











                      • @AlgirdasPreidžius Ah, I stand corrected. Never knew about that.

                        – Cruz Jean
                        Apr 1 at 14:46











                      • This is because the C++ compiler is allowed to modify main to do global initialization. Is it? I can't see how that would even work as you would be assigning in main which can change the observable effects of the program.

                        – NathanOliver
                        Apr 1 at 14:54
















                      5














                      Nope. You can't call it anyway.



                      You only need forward declarations for functions called before they are defined. You need external declarations (which look exactly like forward declarations on purpose) for functions defined in other files.



                      But you can't call main in C++ so you don't need one. This is because the C++ compiler is allowed to modify main to do global initialization.



                      [I looked at crt0.c and it does have a declaration for main but that's neither here nor there].






                      share|improve this answer


























                      • You can call main, it's just typically bad practice.

                        – Cruz Jean
                        Apr 1 at 14:40






                      • 8





                        @CruzJean not just a bad practice, it's undefined behavior as far as I know

                        – Guillaume Racicot
                        Apr 1 at 14:41






                      • 5





                        @CruzJean Not bad practice. Calling it invokes undefined behavior.

                        – Algirdas Preidžius
                        Apr 1 at 14:42











                      • @AlgirdasPreidžius Ah, I stand corrected. Never knew about that.

                        – Cruz Jean
                        Apr 1 at 14:46











                      • This is because the C++ compiler is allowed to modify main to do global initialization. Is it? I can't see how that would even work as you would be assigning in main which can change the observable effects of the program.

                        – NathanOliver
                        Apr 1 at 14:54














                      5












                      5








                      5







                      Nope. You can't call it anyway.



                      You only need forward declarations for functions called before they are defined. You need external declarations (which look exactly like forward declarations on purpose) for functions defined in other files.



                      But you can't call main in C++ so you don't need one. This is because the C++ compiler is allowed to modify main to do global initialization.



                      [I looked at crt0.c and it does have a declaration for main but that's neither here nor there].






                      share|improve this answer















                      Nope. You can't call it anyway.



                      You only need forward declarations for functions called before they are defined. You need external declarations (which look exactly like forward declarations on purpose) for functions defined in other files.



                      But you can't call main in C++ so you don't need one. This is because the C++ compiler is allowed to modify main to do global initialization.



                      [I looked at crt0.c and it does have a declaration for main but that's neither here nor there].







                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited Apr 1 at 14:44

























                      answered Apr 1 at 14:39









                      JoshuaJoshua

                      24.4k550104




                      24.4k550104













                      • You can call main, it's just typically bad practice.

                        – Cruz Jean
                        Apr 1 at 14:40






                      • 8





                        @CruzJean not just a bad practice, it's undefined behavior as far as I know

                        – Guillaume Racicot
                        Apr 1 at 14:41






                      • 5





                        @CruzJean Not bad practice. Calling it invokes undefined behavior.

                        – Algirdas Preidžius
                        Apr 1 at 14:42











                      • @AlgirdasPreidžius Ah, I stand corrected. Never knew about that.

                        – Cruz Jean
                        Apr 1 at 14:46











                      • This is because the C++ compiler is allowed to modify main to do global initialization. Is it? I can't see how that would even work as you would be assigning in main which can change the observable effects of the program.

                        – NathanOliver
                        Apr 1 at 14:54



















                      • You can call main, it's just typically bad practice.

                        – Cruz Jean
                        Apr 1 at 14:40






                      • 8





                        @CruzJean not just a bad practice, it's undefined behavior as far as I know

                        – Guillaume Racicot
                        Apr 1 at 14:41






                      • 5





                        @CruzJean Not bad practice. Calling it invokes undefined behavior.

                        – Algirdas Preidžius
                        Apr 1 at 14:42











                      • @AlgirdasPreidžius Ah, I stand corrected. Never knew about that.

                        – Cruz Jean
                        Apr 1 at 14:46











                      • This is because the C++ compiler is allowed to modify main to do global initialization. Is it? I can't see how that would even work as you would be assigning in main which can change the observable effects of the program.

                        – NathanOliver
                        Apr 1 at 14:54

















                      You can call main, it's just typically bad practice.

                      – Cruz Jean
                      Apr 1 at 14:40





                      You can call main, it's just typically bad practice.

                      – Cruz Jean
                      Apr 1 at 14:40




                      8




                      8





                      @CruzJean not just a bad practice, it's undefined behavior as far as I know

                      – Guillaume Racicot
                      Apr 1 at 14:41





                      @CruzJean not just a bad practice, it's undefined behavior as far as I know

                      – Guillaume Racicot
                      Apr 1 at 14:41




                      5




                      5





                      @CruzJean Not bad practice. Calling it invokes undefined behavior.

                      – Algirdas Preidžius
                      Apr 1 at 14:42





                      @CruzJean Not bad practice. Calling it invokes undefined behavior.

                      – Algirdas Preidžius
                      Apr 1 at 14:42













                      @AlgirdasPreidžius Ah, I stand corrected. Never knew about that.

                      – Cruz Jean
                      Apr 1 at 14:46





                      @AlgirdasPreidžius Ah, I stand corrected. Never knew about that.

                      – Cruz Jean
                      Apr 1 at 14:46













                      This is because the C++ compiler is allowed to modify main to do global initialization. Is it? I can't see how that would even work as you would be assigning in main which can change the observable effects of the program.

                      – NathanOliver
                      Apr 1 at 14:54





                      This is because the C++ compiler is allowed to modify main to do global initialization. Is it? I can't see how that would even work as you would be assigning in main which can change the observable effects of the program.

                      – NathanOliver
                      Apr 1 at 14:54


















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55457704%2fdoes-int-main-need-a-declaration-on-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

                      He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                      Bunad