Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!rutgers!mailrus!ncar!tank!shamash!com50!jhereg!mark From: mark@jhereg.Jhereg.MN.ORG (Mark H. Colburn) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: __STDC__ and non-conforming ANSI C compilers Message-ID: <406@jhereg.Jhereg.MN.ORG> Date: 21 Jan 89 18:47:11 GMT References: <9391@smoke.BRL.MIL> <8731@megaron.arizona.edu> <9405@smoke.BRL.MIL> <9422@smoke.BRL.MIL> <2820@ficc.uu.net> <320@microsoft.UUCP> Reply-To: mark@jhereg.MN.ORG (Mark H. Colburn) Organization: Minnetech Consulting, Inc., St. Paul MN Lines: 28 In article <320@microsoft.UUCP> w-colinp@microsoft.uucp (Colin Plumb) writes: >Basically, this tells you the compiler won't barf on prototypes or >forward struct references or const or volatile or unary + or ... >or # and ## or defined() or any such ANSIism. You still have to worry >about finding the right headers and strrchr and all the library mess >that currently exists. The compiler comes halfway. The problem that others (such as Doug Gwyn) are looking at is does it really understand all of the things that you mentioned, such as function prototypes, #, ##, unary plus, etc.? What if it just understands function prototypes, const, volatile and forward structure references? I would bet there there are going to be vendors out there that decide that that is going to be good enough to define __STDC__. As a developer, I'm going to be very annoyed when my "maximally portable application" is compiled on their system and fails due to a syntax error when it encounters a unary plus. Basically, what I think (I won't speak for any others) is that the only system that is close enough to the standard to define __STDC__ is one that is fully conformant. When I was in high-school I had a science teacher who, when we asked how close to the correct answer we had to be, would respond: "How close do you have to be to kiss your girlfriend?" I think that it follows here too... -- Mark H. Colburn "They didn't understand a different kind of Minnetech Consulting, Inc. smack was needed, than the back of a hand, mark@jhereg.mn.org something else was always needed."