Re: [PATCH-for-6.2? 1/3] docs/devel/style: Improve GLib functions rST rendering

[Darren Kenny]

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 <philmd@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.