On 01/10/20 12:11 pm, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Thu, 1 Oct 2020 11:36:53 +0530 > Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > >> On 30/09/20 6:54 pm, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >>> There are some c-domain tags that are wrong. While this won't >>> cause problems with Sphinx < 3.0, this cause troubles with >>> newer versions, as the C parser won't recognize the contents >>> of the tag, and will drop it from the output. >>> >>> Let's just place them at literal blocks. >>> >> >> tired with Sphinx v3.2.1, invalid C declaration warnings are not >> seen with the patch. > > Well, it would be possible to use :c:expr: with Sphinx 3.2.1, > in order for it to check for invalid C declarations. > > Btw, this is one of the improvements over the last versions: the > rewritten C parser there is a lot more pedantic with regards to the > C syntax. > > - > > That's said, the backward-compatibility code I added at > Documentation/sphinx/cdomain.py will convert this into a > literal markup though, as there's no equivalent tag before > Sphinx 3.x. > > As there are still one upstream issue on Sphinx 3.x that requires a fix[1], > and we don't know yet the issues with :c:expr[2], at least for now, I would > avoid adding :c:expr: markups. > > [1] Right now, the C domain is not able to have two names > for different types. So, it is not possible to have > a struct "foo" and a function "foo". > > Due to that, while I was able to fix all warnings with > Sphinx 2.x build, Sphinx 3.x will still have bogus > warnings. > > [2] One of the limitations of :c:expr: is with regards to function > prototypes. You can't use it like: :c:expr:`int foo(void);`, > as it will complain with the function return type. > Thank you for explaining in detail on the :c:expr: tag. I intended to say this patch fixes the warnings seen while using the c-domain tags and are fixed by converting them into literals. -- Kamalesh
