lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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    [W:0.063 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site