Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: __STDC__ and non-conforming ANSI C compilers
Message-ID: <9494@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 24 Jan 89 21:48:22 GMT
References: <9391@smoke.BRL.MIL> <8731@megaron.arizona.edu> <9405@smoke.BRL.MIL> <344@twwells.uucp> <5414@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 14

In article <5414@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>An excellent idea.  Self-respecting compiler writers would not casually
>define __STDC__ == 0 if the ANSI standard gave a specific meaning to
>it.

What meaning COULD the Standard give for it?  I suppose __STDC__==1
could be reserved for conforming HOSTED implementations and __STDC__==0
reserved for conforming FREESTANDING implementations, but that's about
it.  (Also, several implementors would complain about that specific
formulation.)

The legalistic problem is that the Standard cannot validly specify WHAT
a nonconforming implementation must do.  It already specifies __STDC__
for conforming implementations.