lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    DateSat, 25 Feb 2006 10:36:43 +0100 (MET)
    FromJan Engelhardt <>
    SubjectRe: [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/
    
    
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-02-25 10:40    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2008