From 308947d1ce217279cc24b950ab630fbcad50de73 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: doshimun Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:54:08 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Fix some typos in comments. git-svn-id: http://google-breakpad.googlecode.com/svn/trunk@307 4c0a9323-5329-0410-9bdc-e9ce6186880e --- src/client/windows/handler/exception_handler.cc | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/client/windows/handler/exception_handler.cc b/src/client/windows/handler/exception_handler.cc index 48cb8df3..1543baab 100644 --- a/src/client/windows/handler/exception_handler.cc +++ b/src/client/windows/handler/exception_handler.cc @@ -181,12 +181,12 @@ void ExceptionHandler::Initialize(const wstring& dump_path, } // There is a race condition here. If the first instance has not yet - // initialized the critical section, the second (and later) instances will - // try to use uninitialized critical section object. The featuer of multiple - // instnaces in one module is not used much, so leave it as is for now. + // initialized the critical section, the second (and later) instances may + // try to use uninitialized critical section object. The feature of multiple + // instances in one module is not used much, so leave it as is for now. // One way to solve this in the current design (that is, keeping the static // handler stack) is to use spin locks with volatile bools to synchronize - // the handler stack. This works only if the compiler guarntees to generate + // the handler stack. This works only if the compiler guarantees to generate // cache coherent code for volatile. // TODO(munjal): Fix this in a better way by changing the design if possible.