On 11/18/21 11:58, Darren Kenny wrote: > Hi Philippe, > > There are some inconsistencies in the use of '()' when referring to > functions or macros below...
Daniel, if you agree with Darren comments I can respin addressing them. > 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. >
