Messages in this thread | | | From | Ben Pfaff <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4 | Date | Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:22:27 -0800 |
| |
Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk> writes:
> 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...
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.
-- Ben Pfaff email: blp@cs.stanford.edu web: http://benpfaff.org
- 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/
| |