[LLVM] Fix typo "depedent"

Summary: 

Test Plan: 

Reviewers: 

Subscribers: 

Tasks: 

Tags: 


Differential Revision: https://phabricator.intern.facebook.com/D60251224

Author: jayfoad

llvm/lib/CodeGen/TwoAddressInstructionPass.cpp

@@ -1160,7 +1160,7 @@ bool TwoAddressInstructionImpl::rescheduleKillAboveMI(
     }
   }
 
-  // Check if the reschedule will not break depedencies.
+  // Check if the reschedule will not break dependencies.
   unsigned NumVisited = 0;
   for (MachineInstr &OtherMI :
        make_range(mi, MachineBasicBlock::iterator(KillMI))) {

llvm/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64ISelLowering.cpp

@@ -13292,7 +13292,7 @@ SDValue AArch64TargetLowering::LowerDUPQLane(SDValue Op,
   if (VT.getSizeInBits().getKnownMinValue() != AArch64::SVEBitsPerBlock)
     return SDValue();
 
-  // The DUPQ operation is indepedent of element type so normalise to i64s.
+  // The DUPQ operation is independent of element type so normalise to i64s.
   SDValue Idx128 = Op.getOperand(2);
 
   // DUPQ can be used when idx is in range.

llvm/lib/Target/WebAssembly/WebAssemblyFixBrTableDefaults.cpp

@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ class WebAssemblyFixBrTableDefaults final : public MachineFunctionPass {
 
 char WebAssemblyFixBrTableDefaults::ID = 0;
 
-// Target indepedent selection dag assumes that it is ok to use PointerTy
+// Target independent selection dag assumes that it is ok to use PointerTy
 // as the index for a "switch", whereas Wasm so far only has a 32-bit br_table.
 // See e.g. SelectionDAGBuilder::visitJumpTableHeader
 // We have a 64-bit br_table in the tablegen defs as a result, which does get

llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopLoadElimination.cpp

@@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ class LoadEliminationForLoop {
     // forward and backward dependences qualify.  Disqualify loads that have
     // other unknown dependences.
 
-    SmallPtrSet<Instruction *, 4> LoadsWithUnknownDepedence;
+    SmallPtrSet<Instruction *, 4> LoadsWithUnknownDependence;
 
     for (const auto &Dep : *Deps) {
       Instruction *Source = Dep.getSource(DepChecker);
@@ -201,9 +201,9 @@ class LoadEliminationForLoop {
       if (Dep.Type == MemoryDepChecker::Dependence::Unknown ||
           Dep.Type == MemoryDepChecker::Dependence::IndirectUnsafe) {
         if (isa<LoadInst>(Source))
-          LoadsWithUnknownDepedence.insert(Source);
+          LoadsWithUnknownDependence.insert(Source);
         if (isa<LoadInst>(Destination))
-          LoadsWithUnknownDepedence.insert(Destination);
+          LoadsWithUnknownDependence.insert(Destination);
         continue;
       }
 
@@ -231,9 +231,9 @@ class LoadEliminationForLoop {
       Candidates.emplace_front(Load, Store);
     }
 
-    if (!LoadsWithUnknownDepedence.empty())
+    if (!LoadsWithUnknownDependence.empty())
       Candidates.remove_if([&](const StoreToLoadForwardingCandidate &C) {
-        return LoadsWithUnknownDepedence.count(C.Load);
+        return LoadsWithUnknownDependence.count(C.Load);
       });
 
     return Candidates;

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/forward-loop-independent.ll

@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
 ; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_analyze_test_checks.py UTC_ARGS: --version 4
 ; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output  < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
-; Check that loop-indepedent forward dependences are discovered properly.
+; Check that loop-independent forward dependences are discovered properly.
 ;
 ; FIXME: This does not actually always work which is pretty confusing.  Right
-; now there is hack in LAA that tries to figure out loop-indepedent forward
+; now there is hack in LAA that tries to figure out loop-independent forward
 ; dependeces *outside* of the MemoryDepChecker logic (i.e. proper dependence
 ; analysis).
 ;