Hello,
I noticed and fixed the following typos.
It is possible that I had made a mistake, feel free to post/commit a fix
in that case.
Stepan
2006-03-20 Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* doc/autoconf.texi (Default Includes): Fix typo
s/AC_HEADERS_STDC/AC_HEADER_STDC/
(Limitations of Usual Tools): s/unwriteable/unwritable/
* lib/autoconf/lang.m4 (_AC_COMPILER_EXEEXT_DEFAULT,
_AC_COMPILER_EXEEXT):
Fix typos in the comments.
Index: doc/autoconf.texi
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/autoconf/autoconf/doc/autoconf.texi,v
retrieving revision 1.968
diff -u -r1.968 autoconf.texi
--- doc/autoconf.texi 17 Mar 2006 19:32:53 -0000 1.968
+++ doc/autoconf.texi 20 Mar 2006 14:24:02 -0000
@@ -3320,7 +3320,7 @@
If the default includes are used, then check for the presence of these
headers and their compatibility, i.e., you don't need to run
[EMAIL PROTECTED], nor check for @file{stdlib.h} etc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED], nor check for @file{stdlib.h} etc.
These headers are checked for in the same order as they are included.
For instance, on some systems @file{string.h} and @file{strings.h} both
@@ -12150,7 +12150,7 @@
@prindex @command{chmod}
Avoid usages like @samp{chmod -w file}; use @samp{chmod a-w file}
instead, for two reasons. First, plain @samp{-w} does not necessarily
-make the file unwriteable, since it does not affect mode bits that
+make the file unwritable, since it does not affect mode bits that
correspond to bits in the file mode creation mask. Second,
Posix says that the @samp{-w} might be interpreted as an
implementation-specific option, not as a mode; Posix suggests
Index: lib/autoconf/lang.m4
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/autoconf/autoconf/lib/autoconf/lang.m4,v
retrieving revision 1.173
diff -u -r1.173 lang.m4
--- lib/autoconf/lang.m4 11 Mar 2006 13:17:23 -0000 1.173
+++ lib/autoconf/lang.m4 20 Mar 2006 14:24:03 -0000
@@ -455,8 +455,8 @@
# ---------------------------
# Check for the extension used for the default name for executables.
#
-# We do this in order to find out what is the extension we must for
-# compiling executables (see _AC_COMPILER_EXEEXT's comments).
+# We do this in order to find out what is the extension we must add for
+# creating executables (see _AC_COMPILER_EXEEXT's comments).
#
# Beware of `expr' that may return `0' or `'. Since this macro is
# the first one in touch with the compiler, it should also check that
@@ -591,7 +591,7 @@
#
# Note that some compilers (cross or not), strictly obey to `-o foo' while
# the host requires `foo.exe', so we should not depend upon `-o' to
-# test EXEEXT. But then, be sure no to destroy user files.
+# test EXEEXT. But then, be sure not to destroy user files.
#
# Must be run before _AC_COMPILER_OBJEXT because _AC_COMPILER_EXEEXT_DEFAULT
# checks whether the compiler works.
