Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Frustrated trying to be portable
Keywords: ANSI C, standard library
Message-ID: <15333@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 26 Feb 91 20:19:45 GMT
References: <1991Feb17.203337.20569@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> <2956@cirrusl.UUCP> <4108@lupine.NCD.COM>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 13

In article <4108@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes:
>Why wasn't this done?

It wasn't necessary.

>Now that this mistake has been made, is there any "common practice" or
>defacto standard method by which a program can check to see if it is being
>compiled by/within a "hosted" implementation or a "standalone" implementation?

It isn't necessary.  If the application requires library functions
that are required for a hosted implementation but not for a
freestanding implementation, then it couldn't survive being told
that it is being compiled by a freestanding implementation anyway.