Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!taumet!steve
From: steve@taumet.com (Stephen Clamage)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Want the word on __STDC__
Message-ID: <622@taumet.com>
Date: 8 Mar 91 16:23:31 GMT
References: <4755@lib.tmc.edu> <15260@smoke.brl.mil> <4203@lupine.NCD.COM> <15381@smoke.brl.mil> <668288453.3046@mindcraft.com> <2986@cirrusl.UUCP> <1991Mar7.194733.18150@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Organization: Taumetric Corporation, San Diego
Lines: 21

rbutterw@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) writes:

>In article <2986@cirrusl.UUCP> dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>>First, it is quite possible that a future ANSI C standard will bump up
>>the value of __STDC__ to 2, thus breaking code that assumes that
>>(__STDC__ != 1) implies (not standard C).

>The failure to fully define __STDC__ was obviously a mistake,
>and some vendors have thoroughly abused it.

Wait a minute!  My copy of X3.159-1989 says __STDC__ is defined as
"the decimal constant 1".  That seems about as clear and fully-defined
as it could be.  A processor which defines it to be some other value is
not in compliance with the Standard.  The purpose of a standard is act as
a contract between the compiler writer and the compiler user; if the user
writes a conforming program, the compiler will behave in a predictable way.
A processor might intend not to be in compliance with the standard, in
which case all bets are off.
-- 

Steve Clamage, TauMetric Corp, steve@taumet.com