On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2005-06-19 11:12:49 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > | Other solutions that would fix the bug (but not ultimate solutions):
> > | 1) Do not claim that gcc is a conforming ISO C implementation.
> >
> > As far as I can see, there is no such claim.
>
> The standard says:
>
> __STDC__ The decimal constant 1, intended to indicate a
> conforming implementation.
>
> __STDC_VERSION__ The decimal constant 199901L.138)
I would have hoped the documentation (trouble.texi, "Undefining
@code{__STDC__} when @option{-ansi} is not used.") would have been clearly
enough applicable here. The standard only relates to conforming
compilers, the definitions for compilers aiming towards conformance but
not there yet (-std=c89, -ansi, -std=c99 etc.) and for compilers not
aiming towards conformance are a pragmatic matter only.
As in standards.texi, GCC *aims towards* being usable as a conforming
freestanding implementation, .... The support is not feature-complete as
regards C99 and not fully correct as regards either C90 or C99. There is
no claim to be free from bugs, or free from known bugs, as regards
conformance, and I do not believe bug-free compilers (or popular compilers
free from known bugs) exist.
--
Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal mail)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (CodeSourcery mail)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)
