Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!ncis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!purdue!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: __STDC__ and non-conforming ANSI C compilers
Message-ID: <9416@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 17 Jan 89 22:46:12 GMT
References: <9369@smoke.BRL.MIL> <2788@mhres.mh.nl> <9392@smoke.BRL.MIL> <2779@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 11

In article <2779@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>What is needed, then, is:
>	#ifdef __STD_PROTO__	/* Function prototyping */
>	#ifdef __STD_STRING__	/* string concatenisation */
>	#ifdef __STD_TOKEN__	/* token pasting */

That's fine; get compiler vendors to agree on a useful set.
X3J11 decided not to authorize official "levels" of conformance
to the Standard; it is a pure binary choice (for which __STDC__
is supposed to provide one bit of information, not several bits
as some vendors appear to have decided).