Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!umd5!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!bill
From: bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: #pragma does only half the job (was Re: Pragma and noalias)
Message-ID: <502@proxftl.UUCP>
Date: 20 Jul 88 10:43:35 GMT
References: <381@proxftl.UUCP> <8176@brl-smoke.ARPA> <423@proxftl.UUCP> <23349@think.UUCP> <437@proxftl.UUCP> <1988Jul10.201104.27556@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells)
Organization: Proximity Technology, Ft. Lauderdale
Lines: 20
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Keywords:

In article <1988Jul10.201104.27556@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> >... implementation defined means that you can change only a
> >very limited subset of things, i.e., those things labeled as
> >implementation defined in the standard...
>
> Please justify this with specific citations from X3J11.

3.8.6 says:

"[a pragma] causes the implementation to behave in an
implementation-defined manner...."

My reading of this says that a pragma changes the implementation,
not (directly) the interpretation of the program.  However, the
changed implementation must also be conforming.  This means that
it can only change those aspects of the standard which are
subject to choice, i.e., those things which are implementation
defined (or one of the other indeterminate characteristics).

Anyway, given that reasonable people can disagree on the
interpretation of this, it should be changed.