«

CBFalconer said:

> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Keith Thompson said:
>>
> ... snip ...
>>
>>> The point of my question is to determine whether it's reasonable
>>> to assume (at least) full C95 compliance, or in other words,
>>> whether C95 code is effectively as portable (or nearly as
>>> portable) as C90 code (i.e., as portable as C99 code isn't).
>>
>> I think the answer is probably "no".
>>
>>> (Personally, I don't think I've never run into a need to use any
>>> of the features that were added in C95.)
>>
>> Likewise.
>
> I think that finding <iso646.h> available would indicate C95.

And its absence certainly indicates unC95ness.

The compiler I use here on my desktop system is non-C95. And a quick
check through the compilers on my legacy system (the MS-Junk box) shows
that only a couple of them have that header and therefore stand any
chance of being C95-conforming. The other half-dozen or so do not.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.