Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: __STDC__ and non-strictly conforming ANSI C compilers
Message-ID: <9237@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 27 Dec 88 06:14:18 GMT
References: <3236@pegasus.ATT.COM> <9167@smoke.BRL.MIL> <12643@bellcore.bellcore.com> <9187@smoke.BRL.MIL> <11005@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <9199@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1988Dec18.043804.907@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 26

In article <1988Dec18.043804.907@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>(Speaking as such a software writer, I do *not* consider the suggestion
>of doing an explicit -D__STDC__=1 every time to be helpful.  I don't
>have to do this after every #define, I don't want to have to do it after
>every -D in my Makefile either.)

There must be something wrong with your Makefiles, then.
For a large project, each Makefile should contain something like
	include ../../Make.defs
(actually we use three includable pieces in our biggest project)
so that things like CC and CFLAGS can be defined IN ONE PLACE as
appropriate for the target environment:

	CC = /usr/local/bin/ansi_cc
or
	CC = cc -ANSI -D__STDC__=1	# or whatever
or
	CFLAGS = -ANSI -D__STDC__=1	# or whatever

(/usr/local/bin/ansi_cc can be a shell script that supplies the
necessary flags to enter the standard-conforming mode.)

There is a lot more one could say about such configuration, but
this should be enough to demonstrate that "cc" by itself need
not be ANSI-conforming even if it provides (part of) the way
one invokes an ANSI-conforming compiler.