On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 12:47:19PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Fri, 9 May 2025 23:34:25 +0300
> Alexey Dobriyan <adobri...@gmail.com> escreveu:
>
> > Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobri...@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > index ac9c1dbe00b7..5c5902a0f897 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > @@ -443,6 +443,20 @@ EVER use a typedef unless you can clearly match one of
> > those rules.
> > In general, a pointer, or a struct that has elements that can reasonably
> > be directly accessed should **never** be a typedef.
> >
> > +If you must use ``typedef`` consider using identical names for both the
> > type
> > +and its alias so that the type can be forward declared if necessary:
>
> Better not, as symbols with duplicated names will generate a Sphinx warning
> (*).
>
> (*) It shouldn't, but there is a pending issue on Sphinx since version 3.1
> still not addressed:
>
> https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/pull/8313
OMG, so we are at mercy of static checkers _and_ documentation system? now
I've realised, changelog is bady worded:
Some people invent styles when typedef'ing struct/union:
typedef struct xxx_s {} xxx;
typedef struct _xxx {} xxx;
There is no reason to do that, just typedef to exact same name.
