[PATCH] Change bellow in comments to below

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 07:26:52AM +0000, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
> … “Tunning” looks like a typo as well, should likely be “Tuning”.

You're right, but because like often it occurs in another place as well,
I've committed this separately as obvious.

Thanks for finding this.

2025-07-10  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

	* config/i386/x86-tune.def: Change "Tunning the" to "tuning" in
	comment and use semicolon instead of dot in comment.
	* loop-unroll.cc (decide_unroll_stupid): Comment spelling fix,
	tunning -> tuning.

--- gcc/config/i386/x86-tune.def.jj	2025-07-10 10:16:37.724549554 +0200
+++ gcc/config/i386/x86-tune.def	2025-07-10 10:20:38.687404068 +0200
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.RUNTI
 	- Updating ix86_issue_rate and ix86_adjust_cost in i386.md
 	- possibly updating ia32_multipass_dfa_lookahead, ix86_sched_reorder
 	  and ix86_sched_init_global if those tricks are needed.
-    - Tunning the flags below. Those are split into sections and each
+    - tuning flags below; those are split into sections and each
       section is very roughly ordered by importance.  */
 
 /*****************************************************************************/
--- gcc/loop-unroll.cc.jj	2025-05-20 08:14:06.251408343 +0200
+++ gcc/loop-unroll.cc	2025-07-10 10:21:00.281122186 +0200
@@ -1185,7 +1185,7 @@ decide_unroll_stupid (class loop *loop,
 
   /* Do not unroll loops with branches inside -- it increases number
      of mispredicts.
-     TODO: this heuristic needs tunning; call inside the loop body
+     TODO: this heuristic needs tuning; call inside the loop body
      is also relatively good reason to not unroll.  */
   if (num_loop_branches (loop) > 1)
     {


	Jakub