Fix a ton of comment typos found by codespell. Patch by

Luis Felipe Strano Moraes!



git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@129558 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8

docs/HistoricalNotes/2000-11-18-EarlyDesignIdeasResp.txt

@@ -60,11 +60,11 @@ Understood.  :)
 
 Yup, I think that this makes a lot of sense.  I am still intrigued,
 however, by the prospect of a minimally allocated VM representation... I
-think that it could have definate advantages for certain applications
+think that it could have definite advantages for certain applications
 (think very small machines, like PDAs).  I don't, however, think that our
 initial implementations should focus on this.  :)
 
-Here are some other auxilliary goals that I think we should consider:
+Here are some other auxiliary goals that I think we should consider:
 
 1. Primary goal: Support a high performance dynamic compilation
    system.  This means that we have an "ideal" division of labor between

docs/HistoricalNotes/2000-12-06-MeetingSummary.txt

@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ IDEAS TO CONSIDER
    packaged with the bytecodes themselves.  As a conceptual implementation 
    idea, we could include an immediate dominator number for each basic block
    in the LLVM bytecode program.  Basic blocks could be numbered according
-   to the order of occurance in the bytecode representation.
+   to the order of occurrence in the bytecode representation.
 
 2. Including loop header and body information.  This would facilitate
    detection of intervals and natural loops.

docs/HistoricalNotes/2001-02-06-TypeNotationDebateResp4.txt

@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ declaration and calling syntax.
 
 Very true.  If you're implementing an object oriented language, however,
 remember that you have to do all the pointer to member function stuff
-yourself.... so everytime you invoke a virtual method one is involved
+yourself.... so every time you invoke a virtual method one is involved
 (instead of having C++ hide it for you behind "syntactic sugar").
 
 > And the old array syntax:

docs/HistoricalNotes/2001-02-09-AdveCommentsResponse.txt

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ suggested, as specified below:
 
 Very true.  We should discuss this more, but my reasoning is more of a
 consistency argument.  There are VERY few instructions that can have all
-of the types eliminated, and doing so when available unnecesarily makes
+of the types eliminated, and doing so when available unnecessarily makes
 the language more difficult to handle.  Especially when you see 'int
 %this' and 'bool %that' all over the place, I think it would be
 disorienting to see:
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ branches).
 
 No.  This was something I was debating for a while, and didn't really feel
 strongly about either way.  It is common to switch on other types in HLL's
-(for example signed int's are particually common), but in this case, all
+(for example signed int's are particularly common), but in this case, all
 that will be added is an additional 'cast' instruction.  I removed that
 from the spec.
 
@@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ that can be trivally translated into a conditional move...
 > I agree that we need a static data space.  Otherwise, emulating global
 > data gets unnecessarily complex.
 
-Definately.  Also a later item though.  :)
+Definitely.  Also a later item though.  :)
 
 > We once talked about adding a symbolic thread-id field to each
 > ..

docs/HistoricalNotes/2001-06-01-GCCOptimizations2.txt

@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ Does using GCC's backend buy us anything?
 > optimization (step 16 in your list).  Do you have a breakdown of that?
 
 Not really.  The irritating part of GCC is that it mixes it all up and
-doesn't have a clean seperation of concerns.  A lot of the "back end
+doesn't have a clean separation of concerns.  A lot of the "back end
 optimization" happens right along with other data optimizations (ie, CSE
 of machine specific things).
 

docs/HistoricalNotes/2002-05-12-InstListChange.txt

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ iterator to an instruction, which, given just an Instruction*, requires a
 linear search of the basic block the instruction is contained in... just 
 to insert an instruction before another instruction, or to delete an 
 instruction!  This complicates algorithms that should be very simple (like 
-simple constant propogation), because they aren't actually sparse anymore, 
+simple constant propagation), because they aren't actually sparse anymore,
 they have to traverse basic blocks to remove constant propogated 
 instructions.