Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: POSIX, ANSI C, and __STDC__
Message-ID: <9476@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 21 Jan 89 22:29:37 GMT
References: <915@sfmin.UUCP> <8825@megaron.arizona.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 19

In article <8825@megaron.arizona.edu> mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) writes:
-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:
...
-> 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.

As the main "noisemaker" about this issue, I'll back such a solution
if it appears that we can get a solid majority of the compiler vendors
to adhere to it (and to NOT #define __STDC__ at all in any other case).

Basically, as an application developer I just need to know what __STDC__
means, so I can determine how to use it to my advantage.  I feel sure
it HAS a use, if the vendors don't ruin it..