No matter how frustrating this might be, it seems several points are clear from this post: 1. Implementations claiming to be 'standards conforming' can and do

No matter how frustrating this might be, it seems several points are clear from this post: 1. Implementations claiming to be 'standards conforming' can and do exhibit this behaviour. 2. The groups that wrote the standards do not, as a whole, assert that implementations which behave this way do not conform to the standard. 3. There seems to be consensus that the standard documents themselves as works of natural language produced by the members of the relevant standards bodies are open to a certain amount of interpretation. It would be good if members of the standards body could unify what the standard documents say with what is actually going on somehow. But it would be easy for TI to update their fputc to return the value that was actually written. Why don't they just do it? If the author feels the implementation is not standards conforming, why can't they write a shim to make it so?