Xref: utzoo comp.os.os2:369 comp.lang.c:24423 comp.std.c:2259
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!sco!seanf
From: seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.lang.c,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: MSC __STDC__ strange value
Message-ID: <4082@scolex.sco.COM>
Date: 9 Dec 89 23:18:19 GMT
References: <223@bohra.cpg.oz> <9692@pyr.gatech.EDU> <4714@arisia.Xerox.COM>
Reply-To: seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Lines: 28

In article <4714@arisia.Xerox.COM> leisner@arisia.UUCP (Marty Leisner) writes:
>__STDC__ only needs to be defined in a conforming compiler.

Section 3.8.8:

"The following macro names shall be defined by the implementation:
...
__STDC__	the decimal constant 1. (79)
...
(79) Thus indicating a Standard-conforming implementation."

(The (79) indicates a footnote number, of course).

>It makes no sense to define __STDC__ to be 0 (except to confuse everyone).
>This STDC == 0 stuff has caused  nothing but grief.

Possibly.  I *like* it, and agree with it, although there is one major bug
in MSC that I'd like to fix (dealing with prototypes with mixed named and
unnamed parameters), but I can also agree with people who *don't* like it.

Anyway, a conforming implementation will have __STDC__ defined, and will
have, as it's value, the constant 1 (decimal, as opposed, I guess, to the
octal constant 1 8-)).

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "Time has little to do with infinity and jelly donuts."
seanf@sco.COM    |    -- Thomas Magnum (Tom Selleck), _Magnum, P.I._
(408) 458-1422   | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.