# Fix misspellings in comments.

From-SVN: r3183

gcc/regclass.c

@@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ regclass (f, nregs)
 	  int noperands;
 
 	  /* Show that an insn inside a loop is likely to be executed three
-	     times more than insns outside a loop.  This is much more agressive
+	     times more than insns outside a loop.  This is much more aggressive
 	     than the assumptions made elsewhere and is being tried as an
 	     experiment.  */
 
@@ -1084,7 +1084,7 @@ record_reg_classes (n_alts, n_ops, ops, modes, constraints, insn)
 		break;
 
 	      case 'm':  case 'o':  case 'V':
-		/* It doesn't seem worth distingishing between offsettable
+		/* It doesn't seem worth distinguishing between offsettable
 		   and non-offsettable addresses here.  */
 		allows_mem = 1;
 		if (GET_CODE (op) == MEM)

gcc/reload.c

@@ -673,7 +673,7 @@ push_reload (in, out, inloc, outloc, class,
   if (in != 0)
     class = PREFERRED_RELOAD_CLASS (in, class);
 
-  /* Output reloads may need analagous treatment, different in detail.  */
+  /* Output reloads may need analogous treatment, different in detail.  */
 #ifdef PREFERRED_OUTPUT_RELOAD_CLASS
   if (out != 0)
     class = PREFERRED_OUTPUT_RELOAD_CLASS (out, class);

gcc/sdbout.c

@@ -416,7 +416,7 @@ sdbout_record_type_name (type)
 	{
 	  t = TYPE_NAME (type);
 	}
-#if 1  /* As a temprary hack, use typedef names for C++ only.  */
+#if 1  /* As a temporary hack, use typedef names for C++ only.  */
       else if (TREE_CODE (TYPE_NAME (type)) == TYPE_DECL
 	       && TYPE_LANG_SPECIFIC (type))
 	{

gcc/stmt.c

@@ -3557,7 +3557,7 @@ check_for_full_enumeration_handling (type)
   int all_values = 1;
 
   /* The time complexity of this loop is currently O(N * M), with
-     N being the number of enumerals in the enumerated type, and
+     N being the number of members in the enumerated type, and
      M being the number of case expressions in the switch. */
 
   for (chain = TYPE_VALUES (type);
@@ -3566,7 +3566,7 @@ check_for_full_enumeration_handling (type)
     {
       /* Find a match between enumeral and case expression, if possible.
 	 Quit looking when we've gone too far (since case expressions
-	 are kept sorted in ascending order).  Warn about enumerals not
+	 are kept sorted in ascending order).  Warn about enumerators not
 	 handled in the switch statement case expression list. */
 
       for (n = case_stack->data.case_stmt.case_list;
@@ -3584,7 +3584,7 @@ check_for_full_enumeration_handling (type)
     }
 
   /* Now we go the other way around; we warn if there are case
-     expressions that don't correspond to enumerals.  This can
+     expressions that don't correspond to enumerators.  This can
      occur since C and C++ don't enforce type-checking of
      assignments to enumeration variables. */
 

gcc/toplev.c

@@ -370,7 +370,7 @@ static int flag_rerun_cse_after_loop;
 int flag_inline_functions;
 
 /* Nonzero for -fkeep-inline-functions: even if we make a function
-   go inline everywhere, keep its defintion around for debugging
+   go inline everywhere, keep its definition around for debugging
    purposes.  */
 
 int flag_keep_inline_functions;