Hmm... you forgot the fourth or-part of the 5.1.2.2.1 clause.

>or in some other implementation-defined manner.

>No, the code itself is not valid C89.

$ gcc -std=c89 -c abcxyz.c
$ ls abcxyz.o
abcxyz.o
$

lolwut? with -Wall there's a 'return type defaults to int' warning, but I guess that was to be expected. Works fine after linking with -lm.

BTW, aCU has fold already, it was finished several days ago. Wait until the June update, or if you really want proof I can post the source here.

Now defer any assessments of the abilities of the Anonix programmers until the June update; also, regarding the "X isn't c-whatever-standard" or "X won't work on a system with Y" complaints; for the former, all we're concerned is that the utilities do what the POSIX spec says, and for the latter -- do you have such a system where it won't work? No? Non-existent systems don't matter. Even Linux started out being i386-only.