Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Trolling the standard thumpers
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2026 08:22:45 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <86v782twhm.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <2qLfS.354537$aXr.31321@fx18.ams4> <20260910110112.37@kylheku.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2026 15:22:48 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="1476949"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/YDG9wFHUloeLJYPdQVRwYmLkY/b/4UO4="; posting-host="742ba13f59dd80260e7d5d77f8995b11"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:C5WJNQWAxHjvwXC8KURc3am9Lpg= sha1:whhkUnXTIRdYsryDUponxmcLiss= sha256:d0VhNkdBrGk67iacdLnlSu5J38fGfINo68hF1PPsQUk= sha1:Ll72jObMblDB73bCq3UIoCebnZs= sha256:c1GWCaaqyI4w6Pxr8uvsYVaEjvA7IGR9KDswFSs+ZKI=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:402231

Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> writes:

> On 2026-08-14,
> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Dear comp.lang.c,
>>
>> Because I believe the standard thumpers have trolled us quite well
>> for way too long, I'm asking quite casually, if this is a conformant
>> implementation of printf()?
>>
>>    int printf( const char *format, ... ) {
>>      errno = ENOTTY ;
>>      return -1 ;
>>    }
>
> The proper question is, could an implementation be conforming if that
> were its implementation of printf?
>
> Right of the bat, the implementation could be a conforming freestanding
> implementation, due to freestanding implementations not being required
> to implement stdio.
>
> Could it be a conforming hosted implementation?  I'm afraid the answer
> is yes, due to the way conformance is defined.

Such things have been known for more than 30 years.  The bar for
being a conforming implementation is intentionally very low.  Any
questions like this one are seen a quality-of-implementation
matters rather than one of conformance.  The original C standard
group made this choice knowingly and deliberately, and in my view
correctly.