Want the word on __STDC__

[Henry Spencer]

In article <4755 at lib.tmc.edu> dfenyes at thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (David Fenyes) writes:
>The question is:  Does an ANSI cpp ALWAYS #define __STDC__, even if it
>is used intentionally with a K&R compiler (#defined to 0)?

An "ANSI cpp"?  There is no such thing; there are only ANSI C implementations.
ANSI C does not specify any aspect of the behavior that results if you use
part of an ANSI C implementation in conjunction with something else.  It does
not even promise that this is possible at all, since many C compilers do
not *have* a separate preprocessor.

>Mark Williams uses an ANSI cpp with their non-ANSI compiler, and
>#defines __STDC__ to 0, which causes all sorts of problems when code
>tests #ifdef __STDC__  . . . (rather than #if __STDC__).
>
>Who is the offender? MWC, or those #ifdef'ers out there?

MWC.  Defining __STDC__ to be anything in a non-ANSI environment is a dumb
thing to do.  There is no portable meaning for a __STDC__ value of 0.
-- 
"Read the OSI protocol specifications?  | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
I can't even *lift* them!"              |  henry at zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry