This is an unofficial snapshot of the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22 WG21 Core Issues List revision 117b. See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/ for the official list.
2025-08-11
1938. Should hosted/freestanding be implementation-defined?Section: 4.1 [intro.compliance] Status: CD5 Submitter: Richard Smith Date: 2014-06-09[Accepted as a DR at the February, 2019 meeting.]
Whether an implementation is hosted or freestanding is only required to be documented by the value of the __STDC_HOSTED__ macro (15.12 [cpp.predefined]). Should this characteristic be classified as implementation-defined, thus requiring documentation?
Proposed resolution (January, 2019):
Change 16.4.2.5 [compliance] paragraph 1 as follows:
Two kinds of implementations are defined: hosted and freestanding (4.1 [intro.compliance]) the kind of the implementation is implementation-defined. For a hosted implementation, this document describes the set of available headers.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4