Yes, I did see that post. The multiple statements per line thing is really fishy for a security critical piece of infrastructure.

This is essentially just a bikeshed.

"Wait, this code is hard to understand and requires deep domain knowledge. Better nitpick the code style instead. Also, bikesheds should clearly be orange. Green is way too fishy."

I have domain knowledge and I've read a lot of code in my time. The style in use there is peculiar. That doesn't mean it is malicious or incorrect but it might make it easier to hide if it was.

Sorry you don't see that.

stdint.h is C99 and while I'd love to believe that every C compiler is C99 capable by now, I don't know if that is actually the case. Does stdint.h exist on Win32 these days?

Microsoft's poor support for standard C is no excuse not to use these types everywhere else and either define them yourself on windows or get stdint from boost, from one of the stdint.h replacements or <cstdint> from MSVC 2012.

IMHO, of course.

I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but FYI, MSVC 2013 supports most of C99.

Maybe by Microsoft's definition of 'most'.

* no variable-length arrays

* no qualifiers in parameter array declarators (`int x[static 10]`, etc.)

* no `restrict` keyword

* no compound literals

* no designated initializers

There's probably more.

On the web you'll find the same quote copy & pasted over and over saying that support for compound literals and designated initializers was supposedly added in VS2013, but it does not appear to be true. Either that, or I haven't found the hidden switch to enable it. By the way, C code still needs to be compiled as C++ to get anything beyond C89 to work, which should give you a clue as to how serious Microsoft is about C99.

What's true though is that stdbool.h was added. It's a start, I guess...

That's good to hear, and maybe we can finally move on to more universal use of a 14 year old standard!