http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29845
--- Comment #12 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@baikal.ru 2012-02-12 20:16:14 CST --- (In reply to comment #11)
I'm sorry, but this have nothing to do with "security", or "undefined behaviour" of the *compiled code*.
I disagree to this opinion.
Some source code does not completely adhere to the current rules of the C programming language. The source files are consequently not as secure as without rule violations.
Security of source files is something different to the security of the compiled code. IMHO the "security of source files" term is a pure speculation. A programmer is free to use any identifiers and preprocessor definitions in his/her program as long as the *compiled code* works and doesn't have side effects or security concerns.
Besides, examples in your first comment include definitions of public SDK interfaces which Wine must follow.
I assume that Microsoft and corresponding developers should adjust something to improve software correctness.
There is no point to do that, and backwards compatibility requires to keep that as it is.
As long as the code compiles and works as intended there is nothing to worry about.
I am curious how long such a violated rule will be further tolerated.
As long as it works and does what it supposed to do I'd guess.