Re: -fcrossjumping and -floop-optimize

[Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot OZ dot AU>]

A couple of minor suggestions about the English grammar
in the help messages:

On 18-Mar-2002, Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz> wrote:
> Index: toplev.c
...
> +   {"loop-optimize", &flag_loop_optimize, 1,
> +    N_("Perform the loop optimizations") },

The following would be better English:

       N_("Perform loop optimizations") },

> +   {"crossjumping", &flag_crossjumping, 1,
> +    N_("Perform the crossjumping") },

How about

       N_("Perform cross-jumping optimization") },

or perhaps, since it is sometimes a pessimization rather than
an optimization,

       N_("Perform the cross-jumping transformation") },

> Index: doc/invoke.texi
> + @item -floop-optimize
> + @opindex floop-optimize
> + Perform loop optimizations: move constant expressions out of loops, simplify
> + exit test condition and optionally do strength-reduction and loop unrolling as
> + well.

s/exit test condition/exit test conditions/
                                         ^

> + @item -fcrossjumping
> + @opindex crossjumping
> + Perform cross-jumping that unify equivalent code and save code size. The
> + resulting code may or may not perform better than without cross-jumping.

Hmm.  This wording is a bit awkward.
How about

	Perform the cross-jumping transformation.  This transformation
	unifies equivalent code and reduces code size.  The resulting code
	may or may not perform better than without cross-jumping.

?
That's not much better, but IMHO it is an improvement.

A slightly more detailed explanation of the cross-jumping transformation
might be appropriate here.

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.