Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!corbett
From: corbett@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Robert Corbett)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2
Subject: Re: MSC __STDC__ strange value
Message-ID: <33151@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 11 Dec 89 07:08:23 GMT
References: <223@bohra.cpg.oz> <9692@pyr.gatech.EDU> <4714@arisia.Xerox.COM> <19583@rphroy.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: corbett@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Robert Corbett)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 17

In article <19583@rphroy.UUCP> tkacik@rphroy.UUCP (Tom Tkacik) writes:
>The Apollo C compiler claims to conform to K&R C, with a couple of
>ANSI C extensions, (ie. function prototypes).
>Because of this, they decided that __STDC__ should be defined as 1.
>
>There is absolutely no excuse for this!

Of course there is an excuse for Apollo's definition of __STDC__.  There are
many excuses.  Just be a little more imaginative.  For example, think of
Apollo's C compiler as an ANSI C compiler with a few bugs remaining.
Surely you don't expect people to wait until their compiler is bug free
before they define __STDC__ to be 1.

				With all proper respect and admiration
				it is my pleasure to be
				your obedient servant,
				Robert P. Corbett