Article View: comp.std.c
Article #5657Re: POSIX, ANSI C, and __STDC__
From: Mike Coffin
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1989 19:37
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1989 19:37
21 lines
1462 bytes
1462 bytes
From article <915@sfmin.UUCP>, by dfp@sfmin.UUCP (D.F.Prosser):
> I would propose that __STDC__ be #defined to be 0 in C compilation systems
> that meet all ANSI C conformance requires except for:
> 1. the inclusion of nonconforming "common extensions" listed in A.6.5,
> 2. not issuing otherwise required diagnostics when language extensions
> are used, and/or
> 3. extra names declared or defined in standard headers.
> If __STDC__ is 1, the compilation system must be conforming.
This sounds to me like a very good system. Is there any chance that a
note to this effect could appear in pANS (as a footnote) or in the
rationale? I realize that pANS can not dictate the actions of
nonconforming compilers, but I think that if the above appeared ---
even as a footnote --- most compilers would honor it.
The last sentence is important. Cheating "just a little" when
__STDC__= 1 seems like the first step toward big trouble.
--
Mike Coffin mike@arizona.edu
Univ. of Ariz. Dept. of Comp. Sci. {allegra,cmcl2}!arizona!mike
Tucson, AZ 85721 (602)621-2858
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<8825@megaron.arizona.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!bionet!ig!arizona!mikeReferences:
<915@sfmin.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!bionet!ig!arizona!mike From: mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: POSIX, ANSI C, and __STDC__ Message-ID: <8825@megaron.arizona.edu> Date: 21 Jan 89 19:37:11 GMT References: <915@sfmin.UUCP> Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson Lines: 21