Xref: utzoo comp.os.os2:359 comp.lang.c:24399 comp.std.c:2252
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!math.lsa.umich.edu!sharkey!cfctech!rphroy!tkacik
From: tkacik@rphroy.UUCP (Tom Tkacik)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.lang.c,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: MSC __STDC__ strange value
Message-ID: <19583@rphroy.UUCP>
Date: 8 Dec 89 13:24:11 GMT
References: <223@bohra.cpg.oz> <9692@pyr.gatech.EDU> <4714@arisia.Xerox.COM>
Reply-To: tkacik@rphroy.UUCP (Tom Tkacik)
Followup-To: comp.os.os2
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI
Lines: 24

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

>It makes no sense to define __STDC__ to be 0 (except to confuse everyone).

>I work with a TI34010 and the TI supplied C compiler also defines __STDC__ to 0.  At least with MSC, that's trying to be an ansi C compiler.  TI only claims to be a
>K&R C compiler, if that much.

>This STDC == 0 stuff has caused  nothing but grief.

>I'm close to the point to patching the preprocessor binary to remove this nonsense.

At least it doesn't define __STDC__ to be 1.

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!

-- 
Tom Tkacik		GM Research Labs,   Warren MI  48090
uunet!edsews!rphroy!megatron!tkacik		Work Ph: (313)986-1442
"Csh must go.  This is non-negotiable!"