__STDC__ and non-conforming ANSI C compilers

[Doug Gwyn]

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.