Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!rutgers!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Re: Re: __STDC__ and non-conforming ANSI C compilers
Message-ID: <9455@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 20 Jan 89 16:21:43 GMT
References: <9445@smoke.BRL.MIL> <8792@megaron.arizona.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 12

In article <8792@megaron.arizona.edu> mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) writes:
>Now people are instead advocating setting it to 1 even if the compiler
>is nonconforming, so long as the non-conformance is "minor" or
>"harmless."

Only in cases where NO strictly-conforming application could tell
the difference.  That's the only circumstance for which I think
__STDC__ has a genuine use in applications.  The worst effect it
could have on not strictly conforming applications is that they
might not try to use compatible vendor extensions since they
would be led to think that they didn't exist in this environment.
That doesn't bother me one bit.