66

I was taught that functions need declarations to be called. To illustrate, the following example would give me an error as there is no declaration for the function sum:

#include <iostream>

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

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

// 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;
}

Why the main function doesn't need the declaration, as other functions like sum need?

vinibrsl
  • 6,563
  • 4
  • 31
  • 44
  • 18
    Manually calling main invokes undefined behaviour. – George Apr 01 '19 at 14:40
  • 1
    https://stackoverflow.com/a/19419617/6148717 You could find more on the subject by a quick google search – RanAB Apr 01 '19 at 14:41
  • 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 01 '19 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 - on strike Apr 01 '19 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 01 '19 at 16:59
  • Understood and deleted given the feedback – Michael Stachowsky Apr 01 '19 at 18:17
  • 4
    This is a little bit of an [XY Problem](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66377/what-is-the-xy-problem). The reason you don't add a declaration for `main` in this case has _nothing_ to do with it being special in any way. You can produce this same problem with any pair of functions. – Mooing Duck Apr 01 '19 at 18:34
  • 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 01 '19 at 18:49
  • There is a lot of relevant information about the topic, including quotes from the standard, at [What should `main()` return in C and C++](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/204476/). Notably: _An implementation shall not predefine the main function. This function shall not be overloaded. It shall have a return type of type `int`, but otherwise its type is implementation defined. All implementations shall allow both of the following definitions of main … The function main shall not be used within a program. The linkage (3.5) of main is implementation-defined._ – Jonathan Leffler Apr 02 '19 at 21:07
  • If you call 'main' method by yourself, you will invoke an undefined behaviour of your application. – Fizik26 Apr 11 '19 at 14:33

7 Answers7

64

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.

Eric Postpischil
  • 195,579
  • 13
  • 168
  • 312
  • 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 01 '19 at 23:26
42

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.

Peter Cordes
  • 328,167
  • 45
  • 605
  • 847
eerorika
  • 232,697
  • 12
  • 197
  • 326
35

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.

Matthieu Brucher
  • 21,634
  • 7
  • 38
  • 62
  • 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 02 '19 at 15:06
  • 9
    @Kaz It's a bad idea to do something whose behaviour is undefined. – eerorika Apr 02 '19 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 02 '19 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 02 '19 at 15:39
  • 1
    @MatthieuBrucher Ah, OK; I misread that. The prototype could serve no useful purpose in C++. – Kaz Apr 02 '19 at 15:40
  • Yes, that's probably because I should have been clearer as to what the bad idea referred to. – Matthieu Brucher Apr 02 '19 at 15:42
27

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".

Gardener
  • 2,591
  • 1
  • 13
  • 22
  • 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 01 '19 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 01 '19 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 01 '19 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 01 '19 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 01 '19 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.

NathanOliver
  • 171,901
  • 28
  • 288
  • 402
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.

t.niese
  • 39,256
  • 9
  • 74
  • 101
  • 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 02 '19 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 02 '19 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 (https://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 02 '19 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].

Joshua
  • 40,822
  • 8
  • 72
  • 132
  • You can call `main`, it's just typically bad practice. – Cruz Jean Apr 01 '19 at 14:40
  • 8
    @CruzJean not just a bad practice, it's undefined behavior as far as I know – Guillaume Racicot Apr 01 '19 at 14:41
  • 5
    @CruzJean Not bad practice. Calling it invokes undefined behavior. – Algirdas Preidžius Apr 01 '19 at 14:42
  • @AlgirdasPreidžius Ah, I stand corrected. Never knew about that. – Cruz Jean Apr 01 '19 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 01 '19 at 14:54
  • @NathanOliver: It worked just fine back in the day. It didn't call the assignment operators. It generated the calls to the constructors for all the global objects. – Joshua Apr 01 '19 at 15:17
  • @NathanOliver: see my edit to [@eerorika's answer](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/55457704/does-int-main-need-a-declaration-on-c/55457965#55457965). Remember, the C++ compiler is emitting asm, not more C. It can put calls to init functions at the very top of `main` so they happen before anything in `main`. In fact, modern ICC (Intel's compiler for x86) actually still does this: in https://godbolt.org/z/oWlmlc, notice the `call __intel_new_feature_proc_init` (whatever that is) and setting the SIMD FPU to treat denormals as zero (setting DAZ and FTZ in the MXCSR control register). – Peter Cordes Apr 02 '19 at 10:59
  • ICC defaults to fast-math mode, unlike gcc/clang which default to fairly strict. If you do enable `-ffast-math` with GCC or Clang, they link different CRT start files that change the FPU setting before calling `main`. But ICC is I guess designed to not need its own custom CRT start files. – Peter Cordes Apr 02 '19 at 11:01