Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4

[Jan Engelhardt]

>>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/