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__
Message-ID: <9191@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 15 Dec 88 20:39:57 GMT
References: <3236@pegasus.ATT.COM> <9167@smoke.BRL.MIL> <12643@bellcore.bellcore.com> <8366@megaron.arizona.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 11

In article <8366@megaron.arizona.edu> gmt@arizona.edu (Gregg Townsend) writes:
>I agree that compilers shouldn't break programs by adding gratuitous
>extensions.  But if they do, undefining __STDC__ won't help.

Sure it will.  I certainly want to hear about it if my use of a
function asm(char*) conflicts with a vendor extension!  __STDC__
is defined as meaning "complies with the standard", and I want to
be able to be warned when the "" phrase does NOT apply -- no matter
WHAT the reason.
	#if !STDC__
	#include "*** ERROR *** This program requires real ANSI C"
	#endif