Xref: utzoo comp.std.c:1252 comp.sys.atari.st:16850
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ukma!uflorida!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Mark Williams C
Message-ID: <10361@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 5 Jun 89 11:43:52 GMT
References: <24094@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <431fba10.14a1f@gtephx.UUCP> <8137@boring.cwi.nl> <8530@chinet.chi.il.us> <13475@haddock.ima.isc.com> <1000@twwells.uucp> <13522@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 10

In article <13522@haddock.ima.isc.com> karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
>	#if defined(__STDC__) && __STDC__ <= 0
>	#undef __STDC__
>	#endif
>until someone decides just what __STDC__==0 is supposed to mean.

I don't know about the particular compiler in question, but I don't think
you're supposed to be able to #undef of re-#define the __????__ macros.
That's why I ended up using my own symbol STD_C instead of trying to "fix"
the vendor's __STDC__ in general.