@@ -369,12 +369,12 @@ pub fn target_cpu(sess: &Session) -> &str {
369369/// The list of LLVM features computed from CLI flags (`-Ctarget-cpu`, `-Ctarget-feature`,
370370/// `--target` and similar).
371371pub ( crate ) fn global_llvm_features ( sess : & Session , diagnostics : bool ) -> Vec < String > {
372- // Features that come earlier are overriden by conflicting features later in the string.
372+ // Features that come earlier are overridden by conflicting features later in the string.
373373 // Typically we'll want more explicit settings to override the implicit ones, so:
374374 //
375- // * Features from -Ctarget-cpu=*; are overriden by [^1]
376- // * Features implied by --target; are overriden by
377- // * Features from -Ctarget-feature; are overriden by
375+ // * Features from -Ctarget-cpu=*; are overridden by [^1]
376+ // * Features implied by --target; are overridden by
377+ // * Features from -Ctarget-feature; are overridden by
378378 // * function specific features.
379379 //
380380 // [^1]: target-cpu=native is handled here, other target-cpu values are handled implicitly
@@ -383,7 +383,7 @@ pub(crate) fn global_llvm_features(sess: &Session, diagnostics: bool) -> Vec<Str
383383 // FIXME(nagisa): it isn't clear what's the best interaction between features implied by
384384 // `-Ctarget-cpu` and `--target` are. On one hand, you'd expect CLI arguments to always
385385 // override anything that's implicit, so e.g. when there's no `--target` flag, features implied
386- // the host target are overriden by `-Ctarget-cpu=*`. On the other hand, what about when both
386+ // the host target are overridden by `-Ctarget-cpu=*`. On the other hand, what about when both
387387 // `--target` and `-Ctarget-cpu=*` are specified? Both then imply some target features and both
388388 // flags are specified by the user on the CLI. It isn't as clear-cut which order of precedence
389389 // should be taken in cases like these.
0 commit comments