majnemer added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D17330#354755, @andreybokhanko wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D17330#354730, @majnemer wrote: > > > Why not just stick clang in C90 mode when targeting C if the > > -fms-compatibility-version is 18? > > > > We have similar code for the C++ mode in > > https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/blob/master/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp#l5069 > > > David, thanks for looking into this! > > MSVC18 doesn't support a set C standard; it adds some things from C99 as > well. For example, it supports _Bool. So, I tried not to throw away baby > along with bathwater and cause too much disruption. > > OK -- will implement a driver fix that sets C90 for MSVC18 tomorrow and will > update the patch. > > Andrey _Bool is fine, our C90 support is a superset of C90: it includes things which a conforming implementation is permitted to provide. However, the following test case is problematic: void f() { for (int x = 0; x < 10; ++x) {} for (int x = 0; x < 10; ++x) {} } This is supported by MSVC 2013 but would be (correctly) rejected by a compiler in C90 mode... I have a feeling that sticking us in C90 mode would break code... http://reviews.llvm.org/D17330 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
