Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: __chip is evil
Message-ID: <15093@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Date: 13 Jan 90 00:26:05 GMT
References: <85006@linus.UUCP> <4839@sugar.hackercorp.com> <86113@linus.UUCP> <4919@sugar.hackercorp.com> <11939@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Lines: 29

In article <11939@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>My argument is that the entire Standard must be conformed to, whether or
>not an application happens to actually use #pragma, thus #pragma cannot
>change the semantics that rest of the Standard specifies.

Or else what?  Speaking of semantics!

If an implementation conforms exactly to the Standard, EXCEPT that it
happens to support some extension like

	#pragma allow_some_crappy_old_aberration_from_1981

which, IF you include that line, allows it to compile a non-conformant
program, then do we cry "ooh! bad mans!" and deny conformance to the
whole product?

In other words, must a conforming IMPLEMENTATION be incapable of
accepting any kind of nonconforming SOURCE PROGRAM, no matter what
extra control switches you feed it?

If so -- if vendors would be unable to claim ANSI conformance for any
new compiler release which retains any special backward compatibility or
special extensibility -- then the Standard will be the VERY proud
sovereign of a VERY tiny kingdom indeed... :-)

-- 
"NASA Awards Acronym Generation       :(%( :  Tom Neff
System (AGS) Contract For Space       : )%):  tneff%bfmny@UUNET.UU.NET
Station Freedom" - release 1989-9891  :(%( :  ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff