Why is declaring funciton with static variables in function arguments not a bug on Windows?

I read the documentation about static and other specs from

here and he says

The static specifier is only allowed in variable declarations (except function parameter lists) , function declarations (except block scope), and anonymous union declarations. When used in a class member declaration, it declares a static member. When used in a variable declaration, the static storage duration is specified (unless accompanied by thread_local). When used in a namespace-scoped declaration, it defines an internal binding.

Now let's look at a snippet like

int test(static int a )
{
     return a;
}

int main()
{

    test(5);
    return 0;
}

      

        
        
        
      

    

Which is the complete veil of the tournament itself.
This snippet compiles with a warning in windows and runs

C4042: 'a': has bad storage class

but gives error on Linux (expected behavior)

test.cpp: 2: error: storage class specifiers are not valid in parameter
declarations test.cpp: 2: error: storage class specified for parameter 't'

My question is,
Why does the Windows compiler allow such violations, do they have any advantages that I don't see?
How does this behave at runtime?

I have little guesswork. Maybe none of them is real behavior,
1> static keyword is ignored
2> Multiple copies of this variable a are created whenever the function is called (calling the function in a loop should cause the program to crash with a memory problem.)
3> For only one static instance of this function is created, and each time fucntion is called, the same variable is used (calling the program in a loop will not crash due to less memory)