🚀 go-pugleaf

Sean A Corfield <sean@corf.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Interestingly (or not) there's nothing to prevent a NON-conforming C
>compiler from predefining __STDC__ to be 1! I recall a well-known compiler
>which predefined __STDC__ as zero (unless in ansi compliant mode) -- this
>wreaked havoc with code that simply had:

It's a tautology that the standard has no control over non-standard
compilers...

>  #ifdef __STDC__
>  /* oh, good, it's a conforming compiler! */
>  #endif

>The C++ draft requires __cplusplus to be predefined but sensibly, IMO,
>does not attempt to overspecify conformance the way ISO C attempted.

I can't really argue much with this.  When they first decided __STDC__
should be defined by by conforming compilers, it seemed a reasonable
idea, but seems to me to have accomplished little.
    Later,
    Jerry.

/* I can barely express my own opinions; I certainly can't
 * express anybody else's.
 *
 * The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
 */


[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]