On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 14:59 -0800, Andrew Fish wrote:
> 
> David I'm with you on this, and I would point to the behavior of
> modern compilers (as our examples on the list show) follow the C99
> definition of undefined behavior. 
> 
> It is my understanding that MSVC does not fully support C99, just a
> subset of features.

Oh, wow. I concede I don't really follow the Windows world very much and
haven't done for years — the pollution of EDK2 with Windowsisms is the
closest I've had the misfortune to get.

I didn't realise MSVC was such a substandard compiler. If that's really
the case then I suppose we're kind of stuck. We can't necessarily expect
everyone to upgrade to a saner build platform.

In that case we should definitely use appropriate -std arguments on more
modern toolchains though, to make them enforce the use of anachronistic
code. Writing code targeted at C standard which was obsoleted 14 years
ago is definitely *not* going to come naturally to a lot of people.

-- 
dwmw2

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The Forrester  
Wave(TM): Endpoint Security, Q1 2013 and "remains a good choice" in the  
endpoint security space. For insight on selecting the right partner to 
tackle endpoint security challenges, access the full report. 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/symantec-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel

Reply via email to