On 15.08.2025 14:42, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote: > 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?
That depends on how both quoting styles are treated by Sphinx. Which is something I don't know. I merely noticed the inconsistency within this single patch. Jan
