On Jul 21, 2013, at 8:37 AM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote:
> diff --git a/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/utils2.c b/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/utils2.c
> index 3f39a43..7f7f6af 100644
> --- a/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/utils2.c
> +++ b/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/utils2.c
> @@ -1902,7 +1902,7 @@ build_simple_component_ref (tree record_variable, tree
> component,
> {
> tree new_field;
>
> - /* First loop thru normal components. */
> + /* First loop through normal components. */
>
> "thru" is not a typo.
Yes, it is. Note, this _is_ a value judgement. The source code is not a sign,
and we do no accept the desire by some people to make thru standard, except for
it's usage in space constrained places, like signs and headlines and inform
writing. Drive-thru is fine.
> - then all auto increment forms are ok. */
> + then all auto increment forms are OK. */
>
> The patch would be much smaller if we'd keep "ok"s.
I don't care about size, but, I do prefer ok
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/pr41779.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/pr41779.c
> index 80c8e6b..f80412c 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/pr41779.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/pr41779.c
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -/* PR41779: Wconversion cannot see throught real*integer promotions. */
> +/* PR41779: Wconversion cannot see thought real*integer promotions. */
>
> This change is not ok (eh, OK), it should've been "through".
Thanks.
