[BoundsSafety][doc] Fix formatting (#126245)

Author: pfusik

clang/docs/BoundsSafety.rst

@@ -959,7 +959,8 @@ that has the define.
    #if defined(__has_feature) && __has_feature(bounds_safety)
    #define __counted_by(T) __attribute__((__counted_by__(T)))
    // ... other bounds annotations
-   #else #define __counted_by(T) // defined as nothing
+   #else
+   #define __counted_by(T) // defined as nothing
    // ... other bounds annotations
    #endif
 
@@ -987,7 +988,7 @@ and it does not guarantee other types of memory safety properties. Consequently,
 it may not prevent some of the secondary bounds safety violations caused by
 other types of safety violations such as type confusion. For instance,
 ``-fbounds-safety`` does not perform type-safety checks on conversions between
-`__single`` pointers of different pointee types (e.g., ``char *__single`` →
+``__single`` pointers of different pointee types (e.g., ``char *__single`` →
 ``void *__single`` → ``int *__single``) beyond what the foundation languages
 (C/C++) already offer.
 
@@ -1003,4 +1004,4 @@ Try it out
 
 Your feedback on the programming model is valuable. You may want to follow the
 instruction in :doc:`BoundsSafetyAdoptionGuide` to play with ``-fbounds-safety``
-and please send your feedback to `Yeoul Na <mailto:[email protected]>`_.
+and please send your feedback to `Yeoul Na <mailto:[email protected]>`_.