[gcc(refs/users/marxin/heads/sphinx-final)] sphinx: sync latest changes

[Martin Liska]

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:578d0bdbd6d60bd4e7ad271885e62e024c8e97f6

commit 578d0bdbd6d60bd4e7ad271885e62e024c8e97f6
Author: Martin Liska <mliska@suse.cz>
Date:   Mon Nov 7 22:18:24 2022 +0100

    sphinx: sync latest changes
    
    gcc/ChangeLog:
    
            * doc/gccint/target-macros/stack-layout-and-calling-conventions/passing-arguments-in-registers.rst:
            Port to RST.
            * doc/gccint/target-macros/storage-layout.rst: Likewise.

Diff:
---
 .../passing-arguments-in-registers.rst                              | 2 +-
 gcc/doc/gccint/target-macros/storage-layout.rst                     | 6 +++---
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gcc/doc/gccint/target-macros/stack-layout-and-calling-conventions/passing-arguments-in-registers.rst b/gcc/doc/gccint/target-macros/stack-layout-and-calling-conventions/passing-arguments-in-registers.rst
index 6ece8a4577b..8fce5c3403a 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/gccint/target-macros/stack-layout-and-calling-conventions/passing-arguments-in-registers.rst
+++ b/gcc/doc/gccint/target-macros/stack-layout-and-calling-conventions/passing-arguments-in-registers.rst
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ the stack.
   argument :samp:`{libname}` exists for symmetry with
   ``INIT_CUMULATIVE_ARGS``.
 
-  .. could use "this macro" in place of @code{INIT_CUMULATIVE_ARGS}, maybe.
+  .. could use "this macro" in place of ``INIT_CUMULATIVE_ARGS``, maybe.
 
   .. -mew 5feb93   i switched the order of the sentences.  -mew 10feb93
 
diff --git a/gcc/doc/gccint/target-macros/storage-layout.rst b/gcc/doc/gccint/target-macros/storage-layout.rst
index bcdc87eecd0..7e6b1c978f6 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/gccint/target-macros/storage-layout.rst
+++ b/gcc/doc/gccint/target-macros/storage-layout.rst
@@ -217,10 +217,10 @@ See :ref:`run-time-target`.
 
   If not defined, the default value is ``STACK_BOUNDARY``.
 
-  .. todo:: The default should be @code{PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY}.
+  .. todo:: The default should be ``PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY``.
     But the fix for PR 32893 indicates that we can only guarantee
-    maximum stack alignment on stack up to @code{STACK_BOUNDARY}, not
-    @code{PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY}, if stack alignment isn't supported.
+    maximum stack alignment on stack up to ``STACK_BOUNDARY``, not
+    ``PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY``, if stack alignment isn't supported.
 
 .. c:macro:: MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT