__STDC__ and non-conforming ANSI C compilers
Doug Gwyn
gwyn at smoke.BRL.MIL
Wed Jan 25 07:48:22 AEST 1989
In article <5414 at bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi at 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.
More information about the Comp.std.c
mailing list