Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!ncis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!bionet!ig!arizona!mike
From: mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: __STDC__ and non-conforming ANSI C compilers
Message-ID: <8751@megaron.arizona.edu>
Date: 18 Jan 89 17:45:16 GMT
References: <11236@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US>
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson
Lines: 22

From article <11236@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> (John F. Haugh II):
> I really find this to be a highly bogus argument.  There should be
> no difference between 'cc -DFOO ...' and adding a '#define FOO' at the
> very first line.

Perhaps this particular example of nonconformance can be dealt with,
but please listen to my general argument.  Minor exceptions to strict
compliance to pANS will be common.  Mr. Guin says, and he has
convinced me, that __STDC__ should only be used when the compiler is a
completely conforming ANSI compiler.  Fine.  There are probably some
cases where __STDC__ will be useful, although I haven't been able to
think of one.

All I'm saying is that there is a need for some flag that indicates
"rough ANSI compliance"; i.e., support for the NEW and INCOMPATIBLE
features that were introduced in pANS.  It is true that we can each
invent such flags for ourselves; it really isn't a big deal.  But it
would save a little grief if everyone would agree on something.
-- 
Mike Coffin				mike@arizona.edu
Univ. of Ariz. Dept. of Comp. Sci.	{allegra,cmcl2}!arizona!mike
Tucson, AZ  85721			(602)621-2858