Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!infopiz!lupine!rfg
From: rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Want the word on __STDC__
Keywords: ANSI C __STDC__ preprocessor
Message-ID: <4203@lupine.NCD.COM>
Date: 2 Mar 91 23:21:16 GMT
References: <4755@lib.tmc.edu> <15260@smoke.brl.mil>
Organization: Network Computing Devices, Inc., Mt. View, CA
Lines: 33

In article <15260@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>
>Having said that, I would add that implementors who #define __STDC__
>to anything at all in non-conforming variants of their compilers are
>not doing anyone a favor, and I wish they would desist from that
>practice.

I assume that you also get irrate about implementors who define __STDC__
to something other than 1.

AT&T's CI5 C compiler (for SVR4) can do any one of the following three
possible things (depending upon the options used):

	leave __STDC__ undefined
	predefine __STDC__ to 0
	predefine __STDC__ to 1

The corresponding three "compilation modes" are (respectively):

	compile using both K&R and ANSI rules but use K&R rules in
	cases where there are conflicts

	compile using both K&R and ANSI rules but use ANSI rules in
	cases where there are conflicts

	compile using only ANSI rules (but with some standard comforming
	extensions)

-- 

// Ron Guilmette  -  C++ Entomologist
// Internet: rfg@ncd.com      uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg
// New motto:  If it ain't broke, try using a bigger hammer.