RFA: Fix typo in description of absence_set

[Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>]

Hi Gerald, Hi Joseph,

  Please may I have approval to apply the following patch ?

  It does two things, both in the section in the md.texi file that
  describes the absence_set directive.  The first is to correct a typo
  in the first small example, (where the slots are in the wrong
  order).  The second this is to reword the end of one of paragraphs
  to make it slightly easier to understand.  I have run both of these
  changes past Vladamir Makarov and he thinks that they are OK.

Cheers
  Nick

gcc/ChangeLog
2006-09-15  Nick Clifton  <nickc@redhat.com>

	* doc/md.texi (Processor pipeline description): Correct first
	example of how the absence_set directive works.  Reword prior
	paragraph to make it slightly easier to read.

Index: gcc/doc/md.texi
===================================================================
--- gcc/doc/md.texi	(revision 116962)
+++ gcc/doc/md.texi	(working copy)
@@ -6933,13 +6933,13 @@ The forth construction (@samp{absence_se
 unit in the first string can be reserved only if each pattern of units
 whose names are in the second string is not reserved.  This is an
 asymmetric relation (actually @samp{exclusion_set} is analogous to
-this one but it is symmetric).  For example, it is useful for
-description that @acronym{VLIW} @samp{slot0} can not be reserved after
-@samp{slot1} or @samp{slot2} reservation.  We could describe it by the
-following construction
+this one but it is symmetric).  For example it might be useful in a 
+@acronym{VLIW} description to say that @samp{slot0} cannot be reserved
+after either @samp{slot1} or @samp{slot2} have been reserved.  This
+can be described as:
 
 @smallexample
-(absence_set "slot2" "slot0, slot1")
+(absence_set "slot0" "slot1, slot2")
 @end smallexample
 
 Or @samp{slot2} can not be reserved if @samp{slot0} and unit @samp{b0}