Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 25 Feb 2006 00:20:09 +0100 | From | "Jesper Juhl" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4 |
| |
On 2/25/06, Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 12:01:32AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > 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... >
I agree.
But, it's harmless to change, and a patch is already in mainline a while back that changes all occourences except this one (i simly forgot one), so might as well get the last one and then it's a non-issue.
-- Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - 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/
| |