@@ -2019,6 +2020,21 @@ prevented the entry from working properly and it seemed like it should be added
as well, for fun.
In some cases it might be better to not have them but as noted this is a
judgement call.
+
+
FAQ 4.6: Why was arg count and/or type changed in main() in some older entries?
+
+There are a number of reasons this was done but they usually come down to a
+mis-feature or defect in the clang compiler.
+In all versions of clang the first arg must be an int and the rest must be a
+char ** but in some versions it also objects to the number of args in
+main(). In the versions observed that complain about the number of args it
+says that there must be 0, 2 or 3 args. This only was triggered with 4 args, not
+1, but to future proof the entry entries that had only one arg to main() were
+changed to two.
+The above also meant that some entries that were recursive calls to main()
+could no longer be so: main() instead had to call another function that has
+the body of the old main() and that function would call itself again. In some
+cases, however, this had to be done even without clang objections.
Section 5: Updating or correcting IOCCC web site content
diff --git a/faq.md b/faq.md
index d990498ef..0bb3f692d 100644
--- a/faq.md
+++ b/faq.md
@@ -59,6 +59,7 @@
other inconsistencies with the original entry?](#faq4_3)
- [4.4 - What is the meaning of the file ending in .orig.c in IOCCC entries?](#faq4_4)
- [4.5 - Why were alternate versions added to some entries when the original entry worked fine and well?](#faq4_5)
+- [4.6 - Why was arg count and/or type changed in main() in some older entries?](#faq4_6)
## Section 5 - [Helping the IOCCC](#faq5)
@@ -2408,6 +2409,26 @@ In some cases it might be better to not have them but as noted this is a
judgement call.
+
+### FAQ 4.6: Why was arg count and/or type changed in main() in some older entries?
+
+
+There are a number of reasons this was done but they usually come down to a
+mis-feature or defect in the `clang` compiler.
+
+In all versions of `clang` the first arg must be an `int` and the rest must be a
+`char **` but in some versions it also objects to the number of args in
+`main()`. In the versions observed that complain about the number of args it
+says that there must be 0, 2 or 3 args. This only was triggered with 4 args, not
+1, but to future proof the entry entries that had only one arg to `main()` were
+changed to two.
+
+The above also meant that some entries that were recursive calls to `main()`
+could no longer be so: `main()` instead had to call another function that has
+the body of the old `main()` and that function would call itself again. In some
+cases, however, this had to be done even without `clang` objections.
+
+
## Section 5: Updating or correcting IOCCC web site content