C, distinguish between tag names and ordinary names#8313
C, distinguish between tag names and ordinary names#8313jakobandersen wants to merge 16 commits intosphinx-doc:masterfrom
Conversation
|
I believe the PR is ready for more throughout testing. It would be great if users of the C domain can try it out, both directly and with the config (Ping for those I remember may have interest: @Shamino0, @vstinner, @mchehab, @utzig) |
|
On a quick test, the remaining warnings I was getting with the Linux Kernel docs with Sphinx 3.x have gone after this patch set. Thanks! I'm looking forward to see those patches applied to 3.2.2 ;-) |
Just to be sure, this is also the case with
I'm afraid the changes are too large to put them in 3.2.2, but if nothing major breaks it may be possible to move it to 3.3 instead. |
Yes. I'm attaching the full conf.py I'm using on such test.
That's a bad news. We want this bug to be solved as soon as possible, as we want to ensure that new patches won't be introducing more htmldocs build warnings.
Well, this would be better than having to wait until a next major release. When 3.3 is planned to be released? |
|
@jakobandersen I run this PR now and it fixes most of the duplicate symbol issues, but I see a few new warnings: Those come from these definitions: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/blob/master/include/bluetooth/conn.h#L310 Probably related to the anonymous unions. Also: From these definitions: https://github.com/nrfconnect/sdk-nrfxlib/blob/master/nrf_security/include/mbedcrypto_glue/mbedtls/ccm_alt.h#L40 Not sure if it's because of the redefinition in the typedef and struct names. There are more such issues but all seem somewhat related. Using |
|
What is the state of this PR .. actually in process? |
|
It's not dead, just progressing very very slowly :-). I will update it to take the anonymous types into account as soon as possible, so we can do another round of testing. |
99cb38f to
62ed928
Compare
|
So, I think the PR is ready for another test:
|
…void ambiguities We currently have a struct ssam_request_sync and a function ssam_request_sync(). While this is valid C, there are some downsides to it. One of these is that current Sphinx versions (>= 3.0) cannot disambiguate between the two (see disucssion and pull request linked below). It instead emits a "WARNING: Duplicate C declaration" and links for the struct and function in the resulting documentation link to the same entry (i.e. both to either function or struct documentation) instead of their respective own entries. While we could just ignore that and wait for a fix, there's also a point to be made that the current naming can be somewhat confusing when searching (e.g. via grep) or trying to understand the levels of abstraction at play: We currently have struct ssam_request_sync and associated functions ssam_request_sync_[alloc|free|init|wait|...]() operating on this struct. However, function ssam_request_sync() is one abstraction level above this. Similarly, ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() is not a function operating on struct ssam_request_sync, but rather a sibling to ssam_request_sync(), both using the struct under the hood. Therefore, rename the top level request functions: ssam_request_sync() -> ssam_request_do_sync() ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() -> ssam_request_do_sync_with_buffer() ssam_request_sync_onstack() -> ssam_request_do_sync_onstack() Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/085e0ada65c11da9303d07e70c510dc45f21315b.1656756450.git.mchehab@kernel.org/ Link: sphinx-doc/sphinx#8313 Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220175608.1436273-2-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Patchset: surface-sam
…void ambiguities We currently have a struct ssam_request_sync and a function ssam_request_sync(). While this is valid C, there are some downsides to it. One of these is that current Sphinx versions (>= 3.0) cannot disambiguate between the two (see disucssion and pull request linked below). It instead emits a "WARNING: Duplicate C declaration" and links for the struct and function in the resulting documentation link to the same entry (i.e. both to either function or struct documentation) instead of their respective own entries. While we could just ignore that and wait for a fix, there's also a point to be made that the current naming can be somewhat confusing when searching (e.g. via grep) or trying to understand the levels of abstraction at play: We currently have struct ssam_request_sync and associated functions ssam_request_sync_[alloc|free|init|wait|...]() operating on this struct. However, function ssam_request_sync() is one abstraction level above this. Similarly, ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() is not a function operating on struct ssam_request_sync, but rather a sibling to ssam_request_sync(), both using the struct under the hood. Therefore, rename the top level request functions: ssam_request_sync() -> ssam_request_do_sync() ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() -> ssam_request_do_sync_with_buffer() ssam_request_sync_onstack() -> ssam_request_do_sync_onstack() Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/085e0ada65c11da9303d07e70c510dc45f21315b.1656756450.git.mchehab@kernel.org/ Link: sphinx-doc/sphinx#8313 Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220175608.1436273-2-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
…void ambiguities We currently have a struct ssam_request_sync and a function ssam_request_sync(). While this is valid C, there are some downsides to it. One of these is that current Sphinx versions (>= 3.0) cannot disambiguate between the two (see disucssion and pull request linked below). It instead emits a "WARNING: Duplicate C declaration" and links for the struct and function in the resulting documentation link to the same entry (i.e. both to either function or struct documentation) instead of their respective own entries. While we could just ignore that and wait for a fix, there's also a point to be made that the current naming can be somewhat confusing when searching (e.g. via grep) or trying to understand the levels of abstraction at play: We currently have struct ssam_request_sync and associated functions ssam_request_sync_[alloc|free|init|wait|...]() operating on this struct. However, function ssam_request_sync() is one abstraction level above this. Similarly, ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() is not a function operating on struct ssam_request_sync, but rather a sibling to ssam_request_sync(), both using the struct under the hood. Therefore, rename the top level request functions: ssam_request_sync() -> ssam_request_do_sync() ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() -> ssam_request_do_sync_with_buffer() ssam_request_sync_onstack() -> ssam_request_do_sync_onstack() Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/085e0ada65c11da9303d07e70c510dc45f21315b.1656756450.git.mchehab@kernel.org/ Link: sphinx-doc/sphinx#8313 Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220175608.1436273-2-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Patchset: surface-sam
…void ambiguities We currently have a struct ssam_request_sync and a function ssam_request_sync(). While this is valid C, there are some downsides to it. One of these is that current Sphinx versions (>= 3.0) cannot disambiguate between the two (see disucssion and pull request linked below). It instead emits a "WARNING: Duplicate C declaration" and links for the struct and function in the resulting documentation link to the same entry (i.e. both to either function or struct documentation) instead of their respective own entries. While we could just ignore that and wait for a fix, there's also a point to be made that the current naming can be somewhat confusing when searching (e.g. via grep) or trying to understand the levels of abstraction at play: We currently have struct ssam_request_sync and associated functions ssam_request_sync_[alloc|free|init|wait|...]() operating on this struct. However, function ssam_request_sync() is one abstraction level above this. Similarly, ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() is not a function operating on struct ssam_request_sync, but rather a sibling to ssam_request_sync(), both using the struct under the hood. Therefore, rename the top level request functions: ssam_request_sync() -> ssam_request_do_sync() ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() -> ssam_request_do_sync_with_buffer() ssam_request_sync_onstack() -> ssam_request_do_sync_onstack() Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/085e0ada65c11da9303d07e70c510dc45f21315b.1656756450.git.mchehab@kernel.org/ Link: sphinx-doc/sphinx#8313 Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220175608.1436273-2-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Patchset: surface-sam
…void ambiguities We currently have a struct ssam_request_sync and a function ssam_request_sync(). While this is valid C, there are some downsides to it. One of these is that current Sphinx versions (>= 3.0) cannot disambiguate between the two (see disucssion and pull request linked below). It instead emits a "WARNING: Duplicate C declaration" and links for the struct and function in the resulting documentation link to the same entry (i.e. both to either function or struct documentation) instead of their respective own entries. While we could just ignore that and wait for a fix, there's also a point to be made that the current naming can be somewhat confusing when searching (e.g. via grep) or trying to understand the levels of abstraction at play: We currently have struct ssam_request_sync and associated functions ssam_request_sync_[alloc|free|init|wait|...]() operating on this struct. However, function ssam_request_sync() is one abstraction level above this. Similarly, ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() is not a function operating on struct ssam_request_sync, but rather a sibling to ssam_request_sync(), both using the struct under the hood. Therefore, rename the top level request functions: ssam_request_sync() -> ssam_request_do_sync() ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() -> ssam_request_do_sync_with_buffer() ssam_request_sync_onstack() -> ssam_request_do_sync_onstack() Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/085e0ada65c11da9303d07e70c510dc45f21315b.1656756450.git.mchehab@kernel.org/ Link: sphinx-doc/sphinx#8313 Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220175608.1436273-2-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Patchset: surface-sam
…void ambiguities We currently have a struct ssam_request_sync and a function ssam_request_sync(). While this is valid C, there are some downsides to it. One of these is that current Sphinx versions (>= 3.0) cannot disambiguate between the two (see disucssion and pull request linked below). It instead emits a "WARNING: Duplicate C declaration" and links for the struct and function in the resulting documentation link to the same entry (i.e. both to either function or struct documentation) instead of their respective own entries. While we could just ignore that and wait for a fix, there's also a point to be made that the current naming can be somewhat confusing when searching (e.g. via grep) or trying to understand the levels of abstraction at play: We currently have struct ssam_request_sync and associated functions ssam_request_sync_[alloc|free|init|wait|...]() operating on this struct. However, function ssam_request_sync() is one abstraction level above this. Similarly, ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() is not a function operating on struct ssam_request_sync, but rather a sibling to ssam_request_sync(), both using the struct under the hood. Therefore, rename the top level request functions: ssam_request_sync() -> ssam_request_do_sync() ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() -> ssam_request_do_sync_with_buffer() ssam_request_sync_onstack() -> ssam_request_do_sync_onstack() Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/085e0ada65c11da9303d07e70c510dc45f21315b.1656756450.git.mchehab@kernel.org/ Link: sphinx-doc/sphinx#8313 Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220175608.1436273-2-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Patchset: surface-sam
…void ambiguities We currently have a struct ssam_request_sync and a function ssam_request_sync(). While this is valid C, there are some downsides to it. One of these is that current Sphinx versions (>= 3.0) cannot disambiguate between the two (see disucssion and pull request linked below). It instead emits a "WARNING: Duplicate C declaration" and links for the struct and function in the resulting documentation link to the same entry (i.e. both to either function or struct documentation) instead of their respective own entries. While we could just ignore that and wait for a fix, there's also a point to be made that the current naming can be somewhat confusing when searching (e.g. via grep) or trying to understand the levels of abstraction at play: We currently have struct ssam_request_sync and associated functions ssam_request_sync_[alloc|free|init|wait|...]() operating on this struct. However, function ssam_request_sync() is one abstraction level above this. Similarly, ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() is not a function operating on struct ssam_request_sync, but rather a sibling to ssam_request_sync(), both using the struct under the hood. Therefore, rename the top level request functions: ssam_request_sync() -> ssam_request_do_sync() ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() -> ssam_request_do_sync_with_buffer() ssam_request_sync_onstack() -> ssam_request_do_sync_onstack() Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/085e0ada65c11da9303d07e70c510dc45f21315b.1656756450.git.mchehab@kernel.org/ Link: sphinx-doc/sphinx#8313 Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220175608.1436273-2-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Patchset: surface-sam
…void ambiguities We currently have a struct ssam_request_sync and a function ssam_request_sync(). While this is valid C, there are some downsides to it. One of these is that current Sphinx versions (>= 3.0) cannot disambiguate between the two (see disucssion and pull request linked below). It instead emits a "WARNING: Duplicate C declaration" and links for the struct and function in the resulting documentation link to the same entry (i.e. both to either function or struct documentation) instead of their respective own entries. While we could just ignore that and wait for a fix, there's also a point to be made that the current naming can be somewhat confusing when searching (e.g. via grep) or trying to understand the levels of abstraction at play: We currently have struct ssam_request_sync and associated functions ssam_request_sync_[alloc|free|init|wait|...]() operating on this struct. However, function ssam_request_sync() is one abstraction level above this. Similarly, ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() is not a function operating on struct ssam_request_sync, but rather a sibling to ssam_request_sync(), both using the struct under the hood. Therefore, rename the top level request functions: ssam_request_sync() -> ssam_request_do_sync() ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() -> ssam_request_do_sync_with_buffer() ssam_request_sync_onstack() -> ssam_request_do_sync_onstack() Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/085e0ada65c11da9303d07e70c510dc45f21315b.1656756450.git.mchehab@kernel.org/ Link: sphinx-doc/sphinx#8313 Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220175608.1436273-2-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Patchset: surface-sam
…void ambiguities We currently have a struct ssam_request_sync and a function ssam_request_sync(). While this is valid C, there are some downsides to it. One of these is that current Sphinx versions (>= 3.0) cannot disambiguate between the two (see disucssion and pull request linked below). It instead emits a "WARNING: Duplicate C declaration" and links for the struct and function in the resulting documentation link to the same entry (i.e. both to either function or struct documentation) instead of their respective own entries. While we could just ignore that and wait for a fix, there's also a point to be made that the current naming can be somewhat confusing when searching (e.g. via grep) or trying to understand the levels of abstraction at play: We currently have struct ssam_request_sync and associated functions ssam_request_sync_[alloc|free|init|wait|...]() operating on this struct. However, function ssam_request_sync() is one abstraction level above this. Similarly, ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() is not a function operating on struct ssam_request_sync, but rather a sibling to ssam_request_sync(), both using the struct under the hood. Therefore, rename the top level request functions: ssam_request_sync() -> ssam_request_do_sync() ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() -> ssam_request_do_sync_with_buffer() ssam_request_sync_onstack() -> ssam_request_do_sync_onstack() Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/085e0ada65c11da9303d07e70c510dc45f21315b.1656756450.git.mchehab@kernel.org/ Link: sphinx-doc/sphinx#8313 Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220175608.1436273-2-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Patchset: surface-sam
…void ambiguities We currently have a struct ssam_request_sync and a function ssam_request_sync(). While this is valid C, there are some downsides to it. One of these is that current Sphinx versions (>= 3.0) cannot disambiguate between the two (see disucssion and pull request linked below). It instead emits a "WARNING: Duplicate C declaration" and links for the struct and function in the resulting documentation link to the same entry (i.e. both to either function or struct documentation) instead of their respective own entries. While we could just ignore that and wait for a fix, there's also a point to be made that the current naming can be somewhat confusing when searching (e.g. via grep) or trying to understand the levels of abstraction at play: We currently have struct ssam_request_sync and associated functions ssam_request_sync_[alloc|free|init|wait|...]() operating on this struct. However, function ssam_request_sync() is one abstraction level above this. Similarly, ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() is not a function operating on struct ssam_request_sync, but rather a sibling to ssam_request_sync(), both using the struct under the hood. Therefore, rename the top level request functions: ssam_request_sync() -> ssam_request_do_sync() ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() -> ssam_request_do_sync_with_buffer() ssam_request_sync_onstack() -> ssam_request_do_sync_onstack() Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/085e0ada65c11da9303d07e70c510dc45f21315b.1656756450.git.mchehab@kernel.org/ Link: sphinx-doc/sphinx#8313 Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220175608.1436273-2-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Patchset: surface-sam
…void ambiguities We currently have a struct ssam_request_sync and a function ssam_request_sync(). While this is valid C, there are some downsides to it. One of these is that current Sphinx versions (>= 3.0) cannot disambiguate between the two (see disucssion and pull request linked below). It instead emits a "WARNING: Duplicate C declaration" and links for the struct and function in the resulting documentation link to the same entry (i.e. both to either function or struct documentation) instead of their respective own entries. While we could just ignore that and wait for a fix, there's also a point to be made that the current naming can be somewhat confusing when searching (e.g. via grep) or trying to understand the levels of abstraction at play: We currently have struct ssam_request_sync and associated functions ssam_request_sync_[alloc|free|init|wait|...]() operating on this struct. However, function ssam_request_sync() is one abstraction level above this. Similarly, ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() is not a function operating on struct ssam_request_sync, but rather a sibling to ssam_request_sync(), both using the struct under the hood. Therefore, rename the top level request functions: ssam_request_sync() -> ssam_request_do_sync() ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() -> ssam_request_do_sync_with_buffer() ssam_request_sync_onstack() -> ssam_request_do_sync_onstack() Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/085e0ada65c11da9303d07e70c510dc45f21315b.1656756450.git.mchehab@kernel.org/ Link: sphinx-doc/sphinx#8313 Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220175608.1436273-2-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Patchset: surface-sam
…void ambiguities We currently have a struct ssam_request_sync and a function ssam_request_sync(). While this is valid C, there are some downsides to it. One of these is that current Sphinx versions (>= 3.0) cannot disambiguate between the two (see disucssion and pull request linked below). It instead emits a "WARNING: Duplicate C declaration" and links for the struct and function in the resulting documentation link to the same entry (i.e. both to either function or struct documentation) instead of their respective own entries. While we could just ignore that and wait for a fix, there's also a point to be made that the current naming can be somewhat confusing when searching (e.g. via grep) or trying to understand the levels of abstraction at play: We currently have struct ssam_request_sync and associated functions ssam_request_sync_[alloc|free|init|wait|...]() operating on this struct. However, function ssam_request_sync() is one abstraction level above this. Similarly, ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() is not a function operating on struct ssam_request_sync, but rather a sibling to ssam_request_sync(), both using the struct under the hood. Therefore, rename the top level request functions: ssam_request_sync() -> ssam_request_do_sync() ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() -> ssam_request_do_sync_with_buffer() ssam_request_sync_onstack() -> ssam_request_do_sync_onstack() Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/085e0ada65c11da9303d07e70c510dc45f21315b.1656756450.git.mchehab@kernel.org/ Link: sphinx-doc/sphinx#8313 Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220175608.1436273-2-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Patchset: surface-sam
…void ambiguities We currently have a struct ssam_request_sync and a function ssam_request_sync(). While this is valid C, there are some downsides to it. One of these is that current Sphinx versions (>= 3.0) cannot disambiguate between the two (see disucssion and pull request linked below). It instead emits a "WARNING: Duplicate C declaration" and links for the struct and function in the resulting documentation link to the same entry (i.e. both to either function or struct documentation) instead of their respective own entries. While we could just ignore that and wait for a fix, there's also a point to be made that the current naming can be somewhat confusing when searching (e.g. via grep) or trying to understand the levels of abstraction at play: We currently have struct ssam_request_sync and associated functions ssam_request_sync_[alloc|free|init|wait|...]() operating on this struct. However, function ssam_request_sync() is one abstraction level above this. Similarly, ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() is not a function operating on struct ssam_request_sync, but rather a sibling to ssam_request_sync(), both using the struct under the hood. Therefore, rename the top level request functions: ssam_request_sync() -> ssam_request_do_sync() ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() -> ssam_request_do_sync_with_buffer() ssam_request_sync_onstack() -> ssam_request_do_sync_onstack() Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/085e0ada65c11da9303d07e70c510dc45f21315b.1656756450.git.mchehab@kernel.org/ Link: sphinx-doc/sphinx#8313 Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220175608.1436273-2-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Patchset: surface-sam
…void ambiguities We currently have a struct ssam_request_sync and a function ssam_request_sync(). While this is valid C, there are some downsides to it. One of these is that current Sphinx versions (>= 3.0) cannot disambiguate between the two (see disucssion and pull request linked below). It instead emits a "WARNING: Duplicate C declaration" and links for the struct and function in the resulting documentation link to the same entry (i.e. both to either function or struct documentation) instead of their respective own entries. While we could just ignore that and wait for a fix, there's also a point to be made that the current naming can be somewhat confusing when searching (e.g. via grep) or trying to understand the levels of abstraction at play: We currently have struct ssam_request_sync and associated functions ssam_request_sync_[alloc|free|init|wait|...]() operating on this struct. However, function ssam_request_sync() is one abstraction level above this. Similarly, ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() is not a function operating on struct ssam_request_sync, but rather a sibling to ssam_request_sync(), both using the struct under the hood. Therefore, rename the top level request functions: ssam_request_sync() -> ssam_request_do_sync() ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() -> ssam_request_do_sync_with_buffer() ssam_request_sync_onstack() -> ssam_request_do_sync_onstack() Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/085e0ada65c11da9303d07e70c510dc45f21315b.1656756450.git.mchehab@kernel.org/ Link: sphinx-doc/sphinx#8313 Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220175608.1436273-2-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Patchset: surface-sam
|
Any news about when this will finally be fixed? This bug is opened since Sphinx 3.1. |
yeah, same to the spin-off https://return42.github.io/linuxdoc/ |
…void ambiguities We currently have a struct ssam_request_sync and a function ssam_request_sync(). While this is valid C, there are some downsides to it. One of these is that current Sphinx versions (>= 3.0) cannot disambiguate between the two (see disucssion and pull request linked below). It instead emits a "WARNING: Duplicate C declaration" and links for the struct and function in the resulting documentation link to the same entry (i.e. both to either function or struct documentation) instead of their respective own entries. While we could just ignore that and wait for a fix, there's also a point to be made that the current naming can be somewhat confusing when searching (e.g. via grep) or trying to understand the levels of abstraction at play: We currently have struct ssam_request_sync and associated functions ssam_request_sync_[alloc|free|init|wait|...]() operating on this struct. However, function ssam_request_sync() is one abstraction level above this. Similarly, ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() is not a function operating on struct ssam_request_sync, but rather a sibling to ssam_request_sync(), both using the struct under the hood. Therefore, rename the top level request functions: ssam_request_sync() -> ssam_request_do_sync() ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() -> ssam_request_do_sync_with_buffer() ssam_request_sync_onstack() -> ssam_request_do_sync_onstack() Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/085e0ada65c11da9303d07e70c510dc45f21315b.1656756450.git.mchehab@kernel.org/ Link: sphinx-doc/sphinx#8313 Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220175608.1436273-2-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Patchset: surface-sam
…void ambiguities We currently have a struct ssam_request_sync and a function ssam_request_sync(). While this is valid C, there are some downsides to it. One of these is that current Sphinx versions (>= 3.0) cannot disambiguate between the two (see disucssion and pull request linked below). It instead emits a "WARNING: Duplicate C declaration" and links for the struct and function in the resulting documentation link to the same entry (i.e. both to either function or struct documentation) instead of their respective own entries. While we could just ignore that and wait for a fix, there's also a point to be made that the current naming can be somewhat confusing when searching (e.g. via grep) or trying to understand the levels of abstraction at play: We currently have struct ssam_request_sync and associated functions ssam_request_sync_[alloc|free|init|wait|...]() operating on this struct. However, function ssam_request_sync() is one abstraction level above this. Similarly, ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() is not a function operating on struct ssam_request_sync, but rather a sibling to ssam_request_sync(), both using the struct under the hood. Therefore, rename the top level request functions: ssam_request_sync() -> ssam_request_do_sync() ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() -> ssam_request_do_sync_with_buffer() ssam_request_sync_onstack() -> ssam_request_do_sync_onstack() Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/085e0ada65c11da9303d07e70c510dc45f21315b.1656756450.git.mchehab@kernel.org/ Link: sphinx-doc/sphinx#8313 Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220175608.1436273-2-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Patchset: surface-sam
…void ambiguities We currently have a struct ssam_request_sync and a function ssam_request_sync(). While this is valid C, there are some downsides to it. One of these is that current Sphinx versions (>= 3.0) cannot disambiguate between the two (see disucssion and pull request linked below). It instead emits a "WARNING: Duplicate C declaration" and links for the struct and function in the resulting documentation link to the same entry (i.e. both to either function or struct documentation) instead of their respective own entries. While we could just ignore that and wait for a fix, there's also a point to be made that the current naming can be somewhat confusing when searching (e.g. via grep) or trying to understand the levels of abstraction at play: We currently have struct ssam_request_sync and associated functions ssam_request_sync_[alloc|free|init|wait|...]() operating on this struct. However, function ssam_request_sync() is one abstraction level above this. Similarly, ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() is not a function operating on struct ssam_request_sync, but rather a sibling to ssam_request_sync(), both using the struct under the hood. Therefore, rename the top level request functions: ssam_request_sync() -> ssam_request_do_sync() ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() -> ssam_request_do_sync_with_buffer() ssam_request_sync_onstack() -> ssam_request_do_sync_onstack() Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/085e0ada65c11da9303d07e70c510dc45f21315b.1656756450.git.mchehab@kernel.org/ Link: sphinx-doc/sphinx#8313 Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220175608.1436273-2-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Patchset: surface-sam
…void ambiguities We currently have a struct ssam_request_sync and a function ssam_request_sync(). While this is valid C, there are some downsides to it. One of these is that current Sphinx versions (>= 3.0) cannot disambiguate between the two (see disucssion and pull request linked below). It instead emits a "WARNING: Duplicate C declaration" and links for the struct and function in the resulting documentation link to the same entry (i.e. both to either function or struct documentation) instead of their respective own entries. While we could just ignore that and wait for a fix, there's also a point to be made that the current naming can be somewhat confusing when searching (e.g. via grep) or trying to understand the levels of abstraction at play: We currently have struct ssam_request_sync and associated functions ssam_request_sync_[alloc|free|init|wait|...]() operating on this struct. However, function ssam_request_sync() is one abstraction level above this. Similarly, ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() is not a function operating on struct ssam_request_sync, but rather a sibling to ssam_request_sync(), both using the struct under the hood. Therefore, rename the top level request functions: ssam_request_sync() -> ssam_request_do_sync() ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() -> ssam_request_do_sync_with_buffer() ssam_request_sync_onstack() -> ssam_request_do_sync_onstack() Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/085e0ada65c11da9303d07e70c510dc45f21315b.1656756450.git.mchehab@kernel.org/ Link: sphinx-doc/sphinx#8313 Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220175608.1436273-2-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Patchset: surface-sam
…void ambiguities We currently have a struct ssam_request_sync and a function ssam_request_sync(). While this is valid C, there are some downsides to it. One of these is that current Sphinx versions (>= 3.0) cannot disambiguate between the two (see disucssion and pull request linked below). It instead emits a "WARNING: Duplicate C declaration" and links for the struct and function in the resulting documentation link to the same entry (i.e. both to either function or struct documentation) instead of their respective own entries. While we could just ignore that and wait for a fix, there's also a point to be made that the current naming can be somewhat confusing when searching (e.g. via grep) or trying to understand the levels of abstraction at play: We currently have struct ssam_request_sync and associated functions ssam_request_sync_[alloc|free|init|wait|...]() operating on this struct. However, function ssam_request_sync() is one abstraction level above this. Similarly, ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() is not a function operating on struct ssam_request_sync, but rather a sibling to ssam_request_sync(), both using the struct under the hood. Therefore, rename the top level request functions: ssam_request_sync() -> ssam_request_do_sync() ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() -> ssam_request_do_sync_with_buffer() ssam_request_sync_onstack() -> ssam_request_do_sync_onstack() Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/085e0ada65c11da9303d07e70c510dc45f21315b.1656756450.git.mchehab@kernel.org/ Link: sphinx-doc/sphinx#8313 Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220175608.1436273-2-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Patchset: surface-sam
…void ambiguities We currently have a struct ssam_request_sync and a function ssam_request_sync(). While this is valid C, there are some downsides to it. One of these is that current Sphinx versions (>= 3.0) cannot disambiguate between the two (see disucssion and pull request linked below). It instead emits a "WARNING: Duplicate C declaration" and links for the struct and function in the resulting documentation link to the same entry (i.e. both to either function or struct documentation) instead of their respective own entries. While we could just ignore that and wait for a fix, there's also a point to be made that the current naming can be somewhat confusing when searching (e.g. via grep) or trying to understand the levels of abstraction at play: We currently have struct ssam_request_sync and associated functions ssam_request_sync_[alloc|free|init|wait|...]() operating on this struct. However, function ssam_request_sync() is one abstraction level above this. Similarly, ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() is not a function operating on struct ssam_request_sync, but rather a sibling to ssam_request_sync(), both using the struct under the hood. Therefore, rename the top level request functions: ssam_request_sync() -> ssam_request_do_sync() ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() -> ssam_request_do_sync_with_buffer() ssam_request_sync_onstack() -> ssam_request_do_sync_onstack() Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/085e0ada65c11da9303d07e70c510dc45f21315b.1656756450.git.mchehab@kernel.org/ Link: sphinx-doc/sphinx#8313 Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220175608.1436273-2-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Patchset: surface-sam
…void ambiguities We currently have a struct ssam_request_sync and a function ssam_request_sync(). While this is valid C, there are some downsides to it. One of these is that current Sphinx versions (>= 3.0) cannot disambiguate between the two (see disucssion and pull request linked below). It instead emits a "WARNING: Duplicate C declaration" and links for the struct and function in the resulting documentation link to the same entry (i.e. both to either function or struct documentation) instead of their respective own entries. While we could just ignore that and wait for a fix, there's also a point to be made that the current naming can be somewhat confusing when searching (e.g. via grep) or trying to understand the levels of abstraction at play: We currently have struct ssam_request_sync and associated functions ssam_request_sync_[alloc|free|init|wait|...]() operating on this struct. However, function ssam_request_sync() is one abstraction level above this. Similarly, ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() is not a function operating on struct ssam_request_sync, but rather a sibling to ssam_request_sync(), both using the struct under the hood. Therefore, rename the top level request functions: ssam_request_sync() -> ssam_request_do_sync() ssam_request_sync_with_buffer() -> ssam_request_do_sync_with_buffer() ssam_request_sync_onstack() -> ssam_request_do_sync_onstack() Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/085e0ada65c11da9303d07e70c510dc45f21315b.1656756450.git.mchehab@kernel.org/ Link: sphinx-doc/sphinx#8313 Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220175608.1436273-2-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Patchset: surface-sam
|
Hi, what's the state of this PR ? Is it abandoned or is there any hope that it will be merged some day ? Edit: I guess there is still the intersphinx issue ? Is this second PR still making progress ? |
Feature or Bugfix
Purpose
Introduce tagged names, as in the language, in the end fixing #7819. That is,
declares the names
struct A,union B, andenum C, whiledeclares the name
A. Macros, enumerators, typedefs, and (member) variables are in the same space as functions.(TODO: there is not yet a duplicate check in the tagged space, so two struct/union/enum can have the same name right now)This means that nested names potentially must include the full tagging. E.g., for
then the fully qualified name for
Disstruct A.unioin B.enum C.D.For names appearing inside declarations, the tagging must be present, which may give extra warnings. E.g., for
there will now be a warning about missing target for the
Ainf, because it should be tagged, like ing.However, for now, for backwards compatibility, when writing cross-references an untagged nested name component will match also a tagged declaration (the first one). This means the following works
As a nice side-effect, this incidentally now lets
c:typeroles properly parse tagged names, without the pre-v3 flag.However, note that if a function has the same name as a tagged entity and a cross-reference does not explicitly contain a tag, then the function is selected. That is, lookup is tried first with the explicit name written in the role and only if unsuccessfully it will then try a relaxed lookup. E.g.,:
However, this is not ideal, as there can be ambiguity when referencing function parameters(though note #8310 is not in this branch yet):Here, because the lookup for untagged names selects the first matching entry in the symbol table, we get inconsistency in whatf1.iandf2.ipoints to.How should cross-references be written to not rely on declaration order, and still allow referencing all entities?Would it be ok always to explicitly write tags in cross references? The (temporary) config varc_strict_xref_tagscan be set toTrueto enforce explicit tagging in cross references.