Hi Philippe, There are some inconsistencies in the use of '()' when referring to functions or macros below...
On Tuesday, 2021-11-16 at 16:13:15 +01, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> > --- > docs/devel/style.rst | 31 ++++++++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/docs/devel/style.rst b/docs/devel/style.rst > index 260e3263fa0..415a6b9d700 100644 > --- a/docs/devel/style.rst > +++ b/docs/devel/style.rst > @@ -413,13 +413,14 @@ multiple exist paths you can also improve the > readability of the code > by using ``g_autofree`` and related annotations. See :ref:`autofree-ref` > for more details. > > -Calling ``g_malloc`` with a zero size is valid and will return NULL. > +Calling ``g_malloc`` with a zero size is valid and will return ``NULL``. > g_malloc() ? > > Prefer ``g_new(T, n)`` instead of ``g_malloc(sizeof(T) * n)`` for the > following > reasons: > > -* It catches multiplication overflowing size_t; > -* It returns T ``*`` instead of void ``*``, letting compiler catch more type > errors. > +* It catches multiplication overflowing ``size_t``; > +* It returns ``T *`` instead of ``void *``, letting compiler catch more type > + errors. > > Declarations like > > @@ -444,14 +445,14 @@ use this similar function when possible, but note its > different signature: > > void pstrcpy(char *dest, int dest_buf_size, const char *src) > > -Don't use strcat because it can't check for buffer overflows, but: > +Don't use ``strcat`` because it can't check for buffer overflows, but: > strcat() ? > > .. code-block:: c > > char *pstrcat(char *buf, int buf_size, const char *s) > > -The same limitation exists with sprintf and vsprintf, so use snprintf and > -vsnprintf. > +The same limitation exists with ``sprintf`` and ``vsprintf``, so use sprintf() and vsprintf()? > +``snprintf`` and ``vsnprintf``. > snprintf() and vsnprintf()? > > QEMU provides other useful string functions: > > @@ -464,8 +465,8 @@ QEMU provides other useful string functions: > There are also replacement character processing macros for isxyz and toxyz, > so instead of e.g. isalnum you should use qemu_isalnum. > Should this be isalnum() and qemu_isalnum()? > > -Because of the memory management rules, you must use g_strdup/g_strndup > -instead of plain strdup/strndup. > +Because of the memory management rules, you must use ``g_strdup/g_strndup`` > Wonder should this be ``g_strdup()``/``g_strndup()`` > +instead of plain ``strdup/strndup``. > And ``strdup()``/``strndup()`` > > Printf-style functions > ====================== > @@ -524,10 +525,10 @@ automatic cleanup: > > Most notably: > > -* g_autofree - will invoke g_free() on the variable going out of scope > +* ``g_autofree`` - will invoke ``g_free()`` on the variable going out of > scope > g_autofree() ? > > -* g_autoptr - for structs / objects, will invoke the cleanup func created > - by a previous use of G_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_CLEANUP_FUNC. This is > +* ``g_autoptr`` - for structs / objects, will invoke the cleanup func created > g_autoptr() ? > + by a previous use of ``G_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_CLEANUP_FUNC``. This is > supported for most GLib data types and GObjects > > For example, instead of > @@ -551,7 +552,7 @@ For example, instead of > return ret; > } > > -Using g_autofree/g_autoptr enables the code to be written as: > +Using ``g_autofree/g_autoptr`` enables the code to be written as: > ``g_autofree()``/``g_autoptr()`` ? > > .. code-block:: c > > @@ -569,13 +570,13 @@ Using g_autofree/g_autoptr enables the code to be > written as: > While this generally results in simpler, less leak-prone code, there > are still some caveats to beware of > > -* Variables declared with g_auto* MUST always be initialized, > +* Variables declared with ``g_auto*`` MUST always be initialized, > g_auto*() ? > otherwise the cleanup function will use uninitialized stack memory > > -* If a variable declared with g_auto* holds a value which must > +* If a variable declared with ``g_auto*`` holds a value which must > g_auto*() ? > live beyond the life of the function, that value must be saved > and the original variable NULL'd out. This can be simpler using > - g_steal_pointer > + ``g_steal_pointer`` > g_steal_pointer() ? Thanks, Darren.
