|
101 | 101 | // #define BACKWARD_HAS_UNWIND 1 |
102 | 102 | // - unwind comes from libgcc, but I saw an equivalent inside clang itself. |
103 | 103 | // - with unwind, the stacktrace is as accurate as it can possibly be, since |
104 | | -// this is used by the C++ runtine in gcc/clang for stack unwinding on |
| 104 | +// this is used by the C++ runtime in gcc/clang for stack unwinding on |
105 | 105 | // exception. |
106 | 106 | // - normally libgcc is already linked to your program by default. |
107 | 107 | // |
|
277 | 277 | // #define BACKWARD_HAS_UNWIND 1 |
278 | 278 | // - unwind comes from libgcc, but I saw an equivalent inside clang itself. |
279 | 279 | // - with unwind, the stacktrace is as accurate as it can possibly be, since |
280 | | -// this is used by the C++ runtine in gcc/clang for stack unwinding on |
| 280 | +// this is used by the C++ runtime in gcc/clang for stack unwinding on |
281 | 281 | // exception. |
282 | 282 | // - normally libgcc is already linked to your program by default. |
283 | 283 | // |
@@ -838,7 +838,7 @@ template <typename F> class Unwinder { |
838 | 838 | uintptr_t ip = _Unwind_GetIPInfo(ctx, &ip_before_instruction); |
839 | 839 |
|
840 | 840 | if (!ip_before_instruction) { |
841 | | - // calculating 0-1 for unsigned, looks like a possible bug to sanitiziers, |
| 841 | + // calculating 0-1 for unsigned, looks like a possible bug to sanitizers, |
842 | 842 | // so let's do it explicitly: |
843 | 843 | if (ip == 0) { |
844 | 844 | ip = std::numeric_limits<uintptr_t>::max(); // set it to 0xffff... (as |
@@ -1460,7 +1460,7 @@ class TraceResolverLinuxImpl<trace_resolver_tag::libbfd> |
1460 | 1460 | // line of the function that was called. But if the code is optimized, |
1461 | 1461 | // we might get something absolutely not related since the compiler |
1462 | 1462 | // can reschedule the return address with inline functions and |
1463 | | - // tail-call optimisation (among other things that I don't even know |
| 1463 | + // tail-call optimization (among other things that I don't even know |
1464 | 1464 | // or cannot even dream about with my tiny limited brain). |
1465 | 1465 | find_sym_result details_adjusted_call_site = find_symbol_details( |
1466 | 1466 | fobj, (void *)(uintptr_t(trace.addr) - 1), symbol_info.dli_fbase); |
@@ -1491,7 +1491,7 @@ class TraceResolverLinuxImpl<trace_resolver_tag::libbfd> |
1491 | 1491 | // this time we get the name of the function where the code is |
1492 | 1492 | // located, instead of the function were the address is |
1493 | 1493 | // located. In short, if the code was inlined, we get the |
1494 | | - // function correspoding to the code. Else we already got in |
| 1494 | + // function corresponding to the code. Else we already got in |
1495 | 1495 | // trace.function. |
1496 | 1496 | trace.source.function = demangle(details_selected->funcname); |
1497 | 1497 |
|
@@ -1706,7 +1706,7 @@ class TraceResolverLinuxImpl<trace_resolver_tag::libbfd> |
1706 | 1706 |
|
1707 | 1707 | // are we in the boundaries of the section? |
1708 | 1708 | if (addr < sec_addr || addr >= sec_addr + size) { |
1709 | | - addr -= base_addr; // oups, a relocated object, lets try again... |
| 1709 | + addr -= base_addr; // oops, a relocated object, lets try again... |
1710 | 1710 | if (addr < sec_addr || addr >= sec_addr + size) { |
1711 | 1711 | return; |
1712 | 1712 | } |
@@ -4372,7 +4372,7 @@ class SignalHandling { |
4372 | 4372 | static const constexpr int signal_skip_recs = |
4373 | 4373 | #ifdef __clang__ |
4374 | 4374 | // With clang, RtlCaptureContext also captures the stack frame of the |
4375 | | - // current function Below that, there ar 3 internal Windows functions |
| 4375 | + // current function Below that, there are 3 internal Windows functions |
4376 | 4376 | 4 |
4377 | 4377 | #else |
4378 | 4378 | // With MSVC cl, RtlCaptureContext misses the stack frame of the current |
|
0 commit comments