X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: DJGPP v2.05: some thoughts
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 07:41:15 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <mku86p$vaq$1@speranza.aioe.org>
References: <55673F0B DOT 1090103 AT iki DOT fi> <83twuwwshg DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <55675040 DOT 9030008 AT iki DOT fi> <556F6E49 DOT 8010006 AT gmx DOT de> <556FCCDF DOT 7080005 AT iki DOT fi> <83bngvr0ef DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <557078B1 DOT 9040004 AT iki DOT fi> <201506041613 DOT t54GDT8m014488 AT delorie DOT com> <5570B1F7 DOT 1070509 AT iki DOT fi> <83pp5aprqw DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <mks4nl$1o8$1 AT speranza DOT aioe DOT org> <834mmmp7f0 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <cte6sgFak6U1 AT mid DOT dfncis DOT de> <83y4jynfkj DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: WLZdEp4S2PR09rkVF8ILdg.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT aioe DOT org
User-Agent: tin/2.1.1-20120623 ("Mulindry") (UNIX) (Linux/3.2.0-4-amd64 (x86_64))
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Bytes: 2051
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

"Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org)" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> > From: Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker AT t-online DOT de>
> > Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 20:08:19 +0200
> > I.e. the standard reserves other E* macros for itself, to be used in 
> > future versions.  AIUI, that doesn't actually reserve them for use by 
> > DJGPP, though.

> Indeed, it doesn't, IMO.

Eeerm... I'm confused, DJGPP _is_ the implementation (of C) IMO.

If DJGPP is not the implemtation, what would you call it?

> I think we should stick to the old practice of not defining
> non-standard values when strict standard compliance was requested by
> the compiler switches.

There's obviously nothing wrong _not_ defining them if we want to. We
could because C99 lets us, but we don't have to.


-- 
MartinS