Correct spelling of "relocatable".

1 files changed, 9 insertions, 9 deletions

diff --git a/bfd/cpu-ns32k.c b/bfd/cpu-ns32k.c
index 1fe67d9..1a12b16 100644
--- a/bfd/cpu-ns32k.c
+++ b/bfd/cpu-ns32k.c
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 /* BFD support for the ns32k architecture.
-   Copyright 1990, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002
+   Copyright 1990, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003
    Free Software Foundation, Inc.
    Almost totally rewritten by Ian Dall from initial work
    by Andrew Cagney.
@@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ do_ns32k_reloc (abfd, reloc_entry, symbol, data, input_section, output_bfd,
       return bfd_reloc_ok;
     }
 
-  /* If we are not producing relocateable output, return an error if
+  /* If we are not producing relocatable output, return an error if
      the symbol is not defined.  An undefined weak symbol is
      considered to have a value of zero (SVR4 ABI, p. 4-27).  */
   if (symbol->section == &bfd_und_section
@@ -236,7 +236,7 @@ do_ns32k_reloc (abfd, reloc_entry, symbol, data, input_section, output_bfd,
 	 include the position of the location; for example, m88kbcs,
 	 or ELF.  For those targets, pcrel_offset is TRUE.
 
-	 If we are producing relocateable output, then we must ensure
+	 If we are producing relocatable output, then we must ensure
 	 that this reloc will be correctly computed when the final
 	 relocation is done.  If pcrel_offset is FALSE we want to wind
 	 up with the negative of the location within the section,
@@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ do_ns32k_reloc (abfd, reloc_entry, symbol, data, input_section, output_bfd,
 	 we do not want to adjust the existing addend at all.
 
 	 FIXME: This seems logical to me, but for the case of
-	 producing relocateable output it is not what the code
+	 producing relocatable output it is not what the code
 	 actually does.  I don't want to change it, because it seems
 	 far too likely that something will break.  */
       relocation -=
@@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ do_ns32k_reloc (abfd, reloc_entry, symbol, data, input_section, output_bfd,
 		 should not have any tests that depend upon the flavour.  It's
 		 seem like entirely the wrong place for such a thing.  The
 		 second obvious point is that the current code ignores the
-		 reloc addend when producing relocateable output for COFF.
+		 reloc addend when producing relocatable output for COFF.
 		 That's peculiar.  In fact, I really have no idea what the
 		 point of the line you want to remove is.
 
@@ -315,10 +315,10 @@ do_ns32k_reloc (abfd, reloc_entry, symbol, data, input_section, output_bfd,
 		 (coff-i386 does subtract the old value, to be compatible with
 		 existing coff-i386 targets, like SCO).
 
-		 So everything works fine when not producing relocateable
-		 output.  When we are producing relocateable output, logically
+		 So everything works fine when not producing relocatable
+		 output.  When we are producing relocatable output, logically
 		 we should do exactly what we do when not producing
-		 relocateable output.  Therefore, your patch is correct.  In
+		 relocatable output.  Therefore, your patch is correct.  In
 		 fact, it should probably always just set reloc_entry->addend
 		 to 0 for all cases, since it is, in fact, going to add the
 		 value into the object file.  This won't hurt the COFF code,
@@ -326,7 +326,7 @@ do_ns32k_reloc (abfd, reloc_entry, symbol, data, input_section, output_bfd,
 		 to other formats (the thing to check for would be whether
 		 any formats both use the addend and set partial_inplace).
 
-		 When I wanted to make coff-i386 produce relocateable output,
+		 When I wanted to make coff-i386 produce relocatable output,
 		 I ran into the problem that you are running into: I wanted
 		 to remove that line.  Rather than risk it, I made the
 		 coff-i386 relocs use a special function; it's coff_i386_reloc