I became aware of a typo in this paragraph and then realized there is more
room for editorial changes (grammar, consistency, and being more clear).
*Not* pushed. Honza, Sandra, what do you think?
Gerald
gcc:
* doc/invoke.texi (Optimize Options) <-fprofile-partial-training>:
Editorial changes throughout.
diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index 27539a01785..d7463d30a0c 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
@@ -15053,16 +15053,16 @@ This option is enabled by @option{-fauto-profile}.
@opindex fprofile-partial-training
@item -fprofile-partial-training
-With @code{-fprofile-use} all portions of programs not executed during train
-run are optimized agressively for size rather than speed. In some cases it is
-not practical to train all possible hot paths in the program. (For
-example, program may contain functions specific for a given hardware and
-trianing may not cover all hardware configurations program is run on.) With
-@code{-fprofile-partial-training} profile feedback will be ignored for all
-functions not executed during the train run leading them to be optimized as if
-they were compiled without profile feedback. This leads to better performance
-when train run is not representative but also leads to significantly bigger
-code.
+With @code{-fprofile-use} all portions of programs not executed during
+training runs are optimized aggressively for size rather than speed.
+In some cases it is not practical to train all possible hot paths in
+the program. (For example, a program may contain functions specific to
+a given hardware and training may not cover all hardware configurations
+the program later runs on.) With @code{-fprofile-partial-training}
+profile feedback will be ignored for all functions not executed during
+the training, them being optimized as if they were compiled without
+profile feedback. This leads to better performance when the training
+is not representative at the cost of significantly bigger code.
@opindex fprofile-use
@item -fprofile-use
