Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:36:43 +0100 (MET) | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4 |
| |
>>> No need for that. It's just something that ICC complains about >>> "storage class not being first" - gcc doesn't care. >> >> Neither does C99, so ICC really should either STFU or make that warning >> independent from the rest and possible to turn off... > >C99 does deprecate "const static": > > 6.11.5 Storage-class specifiers >1 The placement of a storage-class specifier other than at the > beginning of the declaration specifiers in a declaration is > an obsolescent feature. > Hm, how about "inline"? GCC also just keeps quiet when a function (or prototype) is written as:
inline static int foo(int bar);
Jan Engelhardt -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |