gh-106948: Doc config ignores more standard C functions by vstinner · Pull Request #107301 · python/cpython

This LGTM, but I'm not a C expert like the other folks here, so while I gave the list a skim and didn't spot any super-obvious false negatives, I could be easily be missing some.

I do share Erlend's and Serhiy's concerns about going overboard with an overly lengthy list that may contain other undetected mistakes that may in turn silence potentially valid errors.

On the other hand, while I'm a stickler for correctness and explicitness, that's balanced with the desire to reduce the burden on doc authors having to manually silence warnings to satisfy the CI, which annoys contributors, consumes non-trivial nitpickiness budget, reduces warning SNR and builds a habit of automatically silencing them rather than carefully considering how to handle each of them individually.

For me, its a trade between the chance of a false negative vs. the accumulated author time and annoyance dealing with the false positives the additional names would have prevented (unless they are somehow going to change frequently, I don't see that much real-world ongoing maintenance cost keeping them in conf.py).

Personally, I'd rather see a few false negatives and have the time saved silencing false positives spent fixing true positives properly (instead of just habitually silencing them)—as you've shown admirable care about so far in #107302 . @vstinner , if you have (or can) checked them over again fairly carefully, then it seems to me that the benefit of the latter would likely outweigh any impact of the former, so I'd be +0.5 on this.