OK, so is initial patch a good one? ;-) Andrey
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 8:06 PM, David Majnemer <david.majne...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
