On 8/15/25 13:30, Dmytro Prokopchuk wrote: > > > On 8/15/25 11:42, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 15.08.2025 09:00, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote: >>> --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst >>> +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst >>> @@ -95,7 +95,8 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules: >>> the absence of reports that do not have an impact on safety, >>> despite >>> being true positives. >>> Xen expects developers to ensure code remains safe and >>> reliable in builds, >>> - even when debug-only assertions like `ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() >>> are removed. >>> + even when debug-only assertions like `ASSERT_UNREACHABLE()` >>> are removed. >>> + - ECLAIR has been configured to ignore those statements. >> >> Mind me asking why one form of quoting is used here (using back-tick), >> while ... >> >>> --- a/docs/misra/rules.rst >>> +++ b/docs/misra/rules.rst >>> @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change. >>> they are used to generate definitions for asm modules >>> - Declarations without initializer are safe, as they are not >>> executed >>> - - Functions that are no-return due to calls to the >>> `ASSERT_UNREACHABLE()' >>> + - Functions that are no-return due to calls to the >>> 'ASSERT_UNREACHABLE()' >> >> ... another is used here (single quotes)? >> >> Jan > > Good question... > I'll align a style. > > Dmytro.
Well, the deviations.rst and rules.rst files have a mixed style. Sometimes file names are in '', and sometimes in ``. The same inconsistency applies to referring to code. Any style suggestions? Dmytro.
