Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:10795 comp.std.c:59
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!mtunx!whuts!homxb!hropus!ki4pv!tanner
From: tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Why does C standard consider each compiler flag a separate implementation?
Summary: "extreme example" indeed!  it only happens to describe real life!
Message-ID: <6956@ki4pv.uucp>
Date: 17 Jun 88 02:49:32 GMT
References: <2746@ttrdc.UUCP> <1543@se-sd.sandiego.NCR.COM>
Organization: Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence Beer Hall and Chapel
Lines: 18

In article <1543@se-sd.sandiego.NCR.COM>, rns@se-sd.sandiego.NCR.COM (Rick Schubert) writes:
) ...  For example, the compiler may have > something similar to:
)	[ strcmp(*argv,"-x") ? compiler1() : compiler2() ]
) This is an extreme example ...

I wouldn't call it a particularly extreme example.  You get a
different compiler (including different parser) under SCO xenix
on the iAEC-386 if you ask for 16-bit code.  This is done with a
command line switch ("-M0", "-M1", "-M2").

You can also get a different linker by adding "-dos" to your
command line.

I think, therefore, that it is reasonable to consider different
command line options to give potentially different implementations.
Sometimes they do!
-- 
rutgers!bpa!cdin-1!cdis-1!ki4pv!tanner  (better than it looks!)
or...  {allegra codas killer decvax!ucf-cs}!ki4pv!tanner