Compatibility mode doesn't always work. For example Kathrein's DVR manager requires a driver that does not run on 64bit.
Thankfully it works in a VM with 32bit XP.

I stand corrected. Shame on me, I suppose.
No idea why 6.7.5.3p14 had slipped my mind so badly.
Certainly embarrassing enough.

The main in C and C++ differ.
The main in C in hosted environments has been either
int main(void) { /*...*/ } or
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { /*...*/ }
since at least the C89 standard.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207005628/http://dev.unicals.com/papers/c89-draft.html#2.1.2
C99/C11 Section 5.1.2.2.1
For freestanding environments the standard states that the name and type of the function called at program startup are implementation-defined.
So, yes void main() would be perfectly valid C if the freestanding environment requires it that way.
Obviously gcc doesn't have to support it or any freestanding environment.
I didn't imply it had to, I merely stated that gcc complains about one incorrect main in a hosted environment but not about another in a hosted environment.

The main in C++ in freestanding environments is, again, implementation-defined.
In hosted environments the main shall have a return type of int but its type is implementation-defined.
Any implementation must at least support
int main() { /*...*/ } and
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { /*...*/ }
Has been like that since the C++98 standard, section 3.6.1.

In C int f(void) is a function with no parameters returning an int,
int f() is a function with no parameter specification returning an int.
They are not the same and should not be treated as such.

No. What we have is gcc failing to support the most basic part of the C standard, rendering its -W flags at least questionable.
If it can't warn about an improper main, what else is it failing at?
All I really wanted to point out is that using some code and a compiler is no way to verify the standard.
I used main as an example because the OP wrote int main() in his "verification".

And regarding the original discussion about uninitialised local variables I agreed with you. But that's because of the standard, not because of how gcc does things.
Regarding gcc's adherence to the standard I gave you the most basic example a compiler should get right but doesn't.
All I'm trying to tell you is that if you want to verify that something is according to the standard, then using a piece of code and a compiler is not the correct way to do it, especially since a compiler can do whatever it wants with all undefined and implementation defined behaviour in the standard.
gcc could have easily chosen to always initialise uninitialised local variables to 0 regardless of optimisations.

No, you verified it well enough for gcc.
gcc complains about void main(), which is perfectly valid C in a freestanding environment, so why can't it complain about int main() in a hosted environment?
My best guess is that the gcc devs don't care about the difference between C and C++ mains because int main() is correct C++.
Or they don't know. Or they're just lazy. In any case, if gcc wasn't free and available, I doubt it'd be used as much.

You didn't actually verify it by using gcc but you're still correct.
By using gcc you only tested gcc's implementation-defined C behaviour.
If gcc was strictly adhering to the C std it would tell you that int main() is undefined behaviour on hosted environments and implementation-defined on freestanding environments.

Well, someone's a little sissy.

And you need someone to hold your hand while watching a show?
Not grown up enough to put a DVD in and hit play?
Does someone still cut your food for you?

Never looked at newegg, considering it's a site for the US market, but I'm not really impressed by its design.
I prefer geizhals.at. Although that site is obviously best for the Austrian/German market one can still use it to narrow it down.

Don't put words into my mouth.

The GPL.

Philips is Dutch.
If you want a German one, then buy Osram.
All my CFLs are Osram with 5 year warranty. So far 3 out of about 20 have failed after 3-4 years.

If you're claiming that one has to carry the Ausweis or the passport on one's person, then you're wrong.
In any case, you're a cute one.

Only partially true.
It is only mandatory to be able to identify yourself.
Whether you do this with a Personalausweis or a Reisepass ("passport") is up to you.
Unless you require a passport for your travels, the Personalausweis is the cheaper alternative.