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... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4
- From: Ben Pfaff <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4
- From: "Jesper Juhl" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4
- References:
- [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4
- From: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4
- From: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4
- From: "Jesper Juhl" <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4
- Prev by Date: Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- Next by Date: Re: Problems for IBM x440 in 2.6.16-rc4-mm1 and -mm2 (PCI?)
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4
- Index(es):
 |