[NFC] fix trivial typos in comments

llvm-svn: 352602

diff --git a/llvm/lib/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis.cpp b/llvm/lib/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis.cpp
index 0768c66..9b02df4 100644 (file)
--- a/llvm/lib/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis.cpp
@@ -3509,7 +3509,7 @@ DependenceInfo::depends(Instruction *Src, Instruction *Dst,
   // to either Separable or Coupled).
   //
   // Next, we consider 1 and 2. The intersection of the GroupLoops is empty.
-  // Next, 1 and 3. The intersectionof their GroupLoops = {2}, not empty,
+  // Next, 1 and 3. The intersection of their GroupLoops = {2}, not empty,
   // so Pair[3].Group = {0, 1, 3} and Done = false.
   //
   // Next, we compare 2 against 3. The intersection of the GroupLoops is empty.

diff --git a/llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp b/llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp
index 5bb7f83..b96f680 100644 (file)
--- a/llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp
@@ -1013,7 +1013,7 @@ int64_t llvm::getPtrStride(PredicatedScalarEvolution &PSE, Value *Ptr,
     return 0;
   }
 
-  // The accesss function must stride over the innermost loop.
+  // The access function must stride over the innermost loop.
   if (Lp != AR->getLoop()) {
     LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "LAA: Bad stride - Not striding over innermost loop "
                       << *Ptr << " SCEV: " << *AR << "\n");
@@ -1085,7 +1085,7 @@ int64_t llvm::getPtrStride(PredicatedScalarEvolution &PSE, Value *Ptr,
     if (Assume) {
       // We can avoid this case by adding a run-time check.
       LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "LAA: Non unit strided pointer which is not either "
-                        << "inbouds or in address space 0 may wrap:\n"
+                        << "inbounds or in address space 0 may wrap:\n"
                         << "LAA:   Pointer: " << *Ptr << "\n"
                         << "LAA:   SCEV: " << *AR << "\n"
                         << "LAA:   Added an overflow assumption\n");
@@ -1345,7 +1345,7 @@ static bool isSafeDependenceDistance(const DataLayout &DL, ScalarEvolution &SE,
   // where Step is the absolute stride of the memory accesses in bytes,
   // then there is no dependence.
   //
-  // Ratioanle:
+  // Rationale:
   // We basically want to check if the absolute distance (|Dist/Step|)
   // is >= the loop iteration count (or > BackedgeTakenCount).
   // This is equivalent to the Strong SIV Test (Practical Dependence Testing,
@@ -1368,7 +1368,7 @@ static bool isSafeDependenceDistance(const DataLayout &DL, ScalarEvolution &SE,
 
   // The dependence distance can be positive/negative, so we sign extend Dist;
   // The multiplication of the absolute stride in bytes and the
-  // backdgeTakenCount is non-negative, so we zero extend Product.
+  // backedgeTakenCount is non-negative, so we zero extend Product.
   if (DistTypeSize > ProductTypeSize)
     CastedProduct = SE.getZeroExtendExpr(Product, Dist.getType());
   else

diff --git a/llvm/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp b/llvm/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp
index 400db4f..20fe957 100644 (file)
--- a/llvm/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp
@@ -3891,7 +3891,7 @@ void ScalarEvolution::eraseValueFromMap(Value *V) {
 }
 
 /// Check whether value has nuw/nsw/exact set but SCEV does not.
-/// TODO: In reality it is better to check the poison recursevely
+/// TODO: In reality it is better to check the poison recursively
 /// but this is better than nothing.
 static bool SCEVLostPoisonFlags(const SCEV *S, const Value *V) {
   if (auto *I = dyn_cast<Instruction>(V)) {

diff --git a/llvm/lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp b/llvm/lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp
index 06b0bd7..eb49f90 100644 (file)
--- a/llvm/lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp
@@ -4354,7 +4354,7 @@ bool llvm::isGuaranteedToTransferExecutionToSuccessor(const Instruction *I) {
 }
 
 bool llvm::isGuaranteedToTransferExecutionToSuccessor(const BasicBlock *BB) {
-  // TODO: This is slightly consdervative for invoke instruction since exiting
+  // TODO: This is slightly conservative for invoke instruction since exiting
   // via an exception *is* normal control for them.
   for (auto I = BB->begin(), E = BB->end(); I != E; ++I)
     if (!isGuaranteedToTransferExecutionToSuccessor(&*I))