To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From: Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:22:27 -0800
Message-ID: <87oe0wxryk.fsf@benpfaff.org>
References: <200602242149.42735.jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
	<1140821964.3615.95.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
	<9a8748490602241501q550488baqad63df65f4dd8623@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060224231749.GH27946@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Reply-To: blp@cs.stanford.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IlBYiPaYcVKQGHo7YOCdNRvTZcg=
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 904
Lines: 20

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/