Path: utzoo!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: Want the word on __STDC__
Message-ID: <15381@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 4 Mar 91 16:50:57 GMT
References: <4755@lib.tmc.edu> <15260@smoke.brl.mil> <4203@lupine.NCD.COM>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 13

In article <4203@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes:
>I assume that you also get irrate about implementors who define __STDC__
>to something other than 1.

I have no problem with an otherwise CONFORMING implementation defining
__STDC__ to something other than 1, although why would it?  At least
that does not cause problems for strictly conforming applications.

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

But that is NOT what __STDC__ means according to the C standard,
which is why there is a problem with people trying to use it for
other purposes.