Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pilchuck!dataio!bright
From: bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: __STDC__
Message-ID: <1963@dataio.Data-IO.COM>
Date: 1 May 89 18:21:34 GMT
References: <10176@smoke.BRL.MIL> <17.UUL1.3#5077@aussie.UUCP>
Reply-To: bright@dataio.Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright)
Organization: Data I/O Corporation; Redmond, WA
Lines: 24

In article <17.UUL1.3#5077@aussie.UUCP> rex@aussie.UUCP (Rex Jaeschke) writes:
<Zortech's C++ V1.07c. I presume it's the most recent release since I 
<was recently shipped it for review. It says __STDC__ == 1 and won't 
<hand ??= as #. I'm sure it is missing numerous other things too - 

You're right. When you compile with the -A switch, the compiler sets
__STDC__ to 1. When you don't, it won't. Trigraphs weren't implemented
in that version of the compiler because the ANSI C document was still
undergoing revisions, and due to the number of people who obviously
disliked trigraphs (including me!) I suspected that they would go the
way of noalias. I had implemented several ANSI features at one time, only
to see them get changed or dumped in subsequent revisions of the standard.

It's still premature to rate compilers on ANSI compliance since the standard
has not been signed off yet.

It's also interesting to note that many people seem to believe that ANSI
conformance == no bugs. This is completely unrealistic. A full ANSI compiler
is very complex, and therefore will have bugs in it. In the absence of an
officially endorsed ANSI certification process, the best that can be hoped
for is ongoing effort by compiler vendors to eliminate any problems.

That shouldn't be any problem, as pressure from customers for absolute
conformance is very strong.