Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!ulysses!hector!jss
From: jss@hector.UUCP (Jerry Schwarz)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: __STDC__ and non-strictly conforming ANSI C compilers
Keywords: ANSI C, __STDC__, near, far, flexnames
Message-ID: <11005@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: 15 Dec 88 05:57:20 GMT
References: <3236@pegasus.ATT.COM> <9167@smoke.BRL.MIL> <12643@bellcore.bellcore.com> <9187@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Sender: netnews@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com
Reply-To: jss@hector.UUCP (Jerry Schwarz)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 26

In article <9187@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>
>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.

Lets suppose we take the version route.  Assume that the only
difference between the versions is the treatment of "near". The
question that started this topic was whether the non-conforming
version should define __STDC__.  My answer is yes.  I think Doug's
answer is no.

Does the answer depend on which of the following commands is used
to invoke the non-conforming compiler?

	xcc prog.c
	cc -extended prog.c
	cc -Dnear=__near prog.c

Jerry Schwarz
AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill


r