Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: __STDC__ and non-conforming ANSI C compilers
Message-ID: <2797@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 17 Jan 89 14:15:50 GMT
References: <9369@smoke.BRL.MIL> <2788@mhres.mh.nl> <9392@smoke.BRL.MIL> <9416@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: Xenix Support
Lines: 24

In article <9416@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
> 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.

I can't do that. Only someone like X3J11 could push it through.

By the by, some people are claiming that putting '-DFOO' on the command
line makes the compiler non-conforming. Doesn't that make __STDC__
pretty useless? Have you looked at the news sources, lately?

> X3J11 decided not to authorize official "levels" of conformance
> to the Standard;

I suspect this is a mistake.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.   `-_-'
Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net.                 'U`
Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.