Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!bionet!ig!arizona!mike
From: mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: POSIX, ANSI C, and __STDC__
Message-ID: <8825@megaron.arizona.edu>
Date: 21 Jan 89 19:37:11 GMT
References: <915@sfmin.UUCP>
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson
Lines: 21

From article <915@sfmin.UUCP>, by dfp@sfmin.UUCP (D.F.Prosser):
> I would propose that __STDC__ be #defined to be 0 in C compilation systems
> that meet all ANSI C conformance requires except for:
>   1. the inclusion of nonconforming "common extensions" listed in A.6.5,
>   2. not issuing otherwise required diagnostics when language extensions
>      are used, and/or
>   3. extra names declared or defined in standard headers.
> If __STDC__ is 1, the compilation system must be conforming.

This sounds to me like a very good system.  Is there any chance that a
note to this effect could appear in pANS (as a footnote) or in the
rationale?  I realize that pANS can not dictate the actions of
nonconforming compilers, but I think that if the above appeared ---
even as a footnote --- most compilers would honor it.

The last sentence is important.  Cheating "just a little" when
__STDC__= 1 seems like the first step toward big trouble.
-- 
Mike Coffin				mike@arizona.edu
Univ. of Ariz. Dept. of Comp. Sci.	{allegra,cmcl2}!arizona!mike
Tucson, AZ  85721			(602)621-2858