Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: __STDC__ and non-strictly conforming ANSI C compilers
Keywords: ANSI C, __STDC__, near, far, flexnames
Message-ID: <9187@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 15 Dec 88 01:08:45 GMT
References: <3236@pegasus.ATT.COM> <9167@smoke.BRL.MIL> <12643@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 16

In article <12643@bellcore.bellcore.com> sjs@sjs@ctt.bellcore.com (Stan Switzer) writes:
>I hope that when I say "#ifdef __STDC__" I get no ugly surprises.

Everything Stan said was correct.

Note that macros such as "near" can be defined (as "__near", for
example) in any non-standard header, as well as under control of
compiler options or a special non-ANSI, backward-compatible
version of the cc command.  The constraints against pollution of
the name space by implementations is a great advance in sanity
and should be taken quite seriously.

Let me add that the so-called "common extensions" listed in the
proposed standard are not all guaranteed to be permitted in
conforming implementations.  Some are, and some aren't.  I don't
think that section even belongs in the standard, but I was
obviously outnumbered.  Politics, politics.