Changeset 5faa3a5 for doc/theses/mike_brooks_MMath/background.tex

Timestamp:

Apr 28, 2026, 8:56:08 AM (21 hours ago)

Author:

Peter A. Buhr <pabuhr@…>

Branches:

master

Parents:

bf8112b

Message:

spelling corrections, and final proofreading

File:

• doc/theses/mike_brooks_MMath/background.tex (modified) (3 diffs)

doc/theses/mike_brooks_MMath/background.tex

@@ -463 +463 @@
 however, it requires all dimensions except the first to be specified at compile time, \eg @m[][6]@, allowing all subscripting stride calculations to be generated with constants.
 Hence, every matrix passed to @fp1@ must have exactly 6 columns but the row size can vary.
-The variable-dimension approach (right) ignores (violates) the type system, \ie the parameter type has no suggestion of mutidimensionality and some acrobatics are required for a w\footnote{
+The variable-dimension approach (right) ignores (violates) the type system, \ie the parameter type has no suggestion of multidimensionality and some acrobatics are required for a w\footnote{
         One may be tempted to phrase a call as \lstinline{fp2( 4, 4, vm1 )}, but this call is ill-typed.  Argument \lstinline{vm1} could match parameter declarations \lstinline{int m[][4]} or \lstinline{int (*m)[4]}.  But only the argument \lstinline{&vm1[0][0]}, or its equivalent, but confusing, \lstinline{vm1[0]}, relate \lstinline{vm1} to parameter type \lstinline{int*}.
 }, and subscripting is performed manually using pointer arithmetic in the macro @sub@.
@@ -534 +534 @@
 Nevertheless, the C array-of-array form is still important for special circumstances.
 
-\VRef[Figure]{f:ContiguousNon-contiguous} shows a powerful extension made in C99, for manipulating contiguous \vs non-contiguous arrays.\footnote{C90 also supported non-contiguous arrays.  Though GNU-flavoured C++ eventually got VLAs, it never got this enhancement for managing a multidimensionl VLA parameter. }
+\VRef[Figure]{f:ContiguousNon-contiguous} shows a powerful extension made in C99, for manipulating contiguous \vs non-contiguous arrays.\footnote{C90 also supported non-contiguous arrays.  Though GNU-flavoured C++ eventually got VLAs, it never got this enhancement for managing a multidimensional VLA parameter. }
 For contiguous-array arguments (including VLA), C99 conjoins one or more of the parameters as a downstream dimension(s), \eg @cols@, implicitly using this parameter to compute the row stride of @m@.
 Hence, if the declaration of @fc@ is changed to:
@@ -1184 +1184 @@
 \end{c++}
 It turns out that @TAILQ_REMOVE@ uses its ``which element to remove'' parameter at several places, importantly, one occurring after the removal's changes are in progress.
-When the second use encounters the macro substitution @TAILQ_LAST(reqs, reql)@, it obtains a different node than the first use got, with the removal's changes having alredy started.
+When the second use encounters the macro substitution @TAILQ_LAST(reqs, reql)@, it obtains a different node than the first use got, with the removal's changes having already started.
 This macro-induced phenomenon led to an invalid pointer dereference (safety violation), at a run-time well after the removal at issue (costly to resolve).