Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: (So-Called) ANSI C
Message-ID: <6918@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 5 Jan 88 23:04:19 GMT
References: <4668@pyr.gatech.EDU> <3873@uw-june.UUCP> <6896@brl-smoke.ARPA> <1574@copper.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 10

In article <1574@copper.TEK.COM> timc@copper.UUCP (Tim Carver) writes:
>Would you tell us, please, what rules you are talking about ?  I haven't
>seen anything in the standard that says pragmas "can't alter program
>semantics".  They cause implementation-defined behaviour, period.

Yes, #pragma itself has implementation-defined behavior, but other
program constructs have well-specified required semantics.  An
implementation cannot obey the latter constraint if its "implementation
definition" of the effect of #pragma conflicts with the required
abstract machine semantics.