lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-25 00:25    [W:1.025 / U:0.844 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site