Grammar tweaks.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@58544 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
diff --git a/www/performance.html b/www/performance.html
index fe1fdff..0c98011 100644
--- a/www/performance.html
+++ b/www/performance.html
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@
each subsequent stage simply adds some additional processing. The
timings measure the delta of the given stage from the previous
one. For example, the timings for <tt>-fsyntax-only</tt> below show
-the difference of running with <tt>-fsyntax-only</tt> verse running
+the difference of running with <tt>-fsyntax-only</tt> versus running
with <tt>-parse-noop</tt> (for clang) or <tt>-MM</tt> with gcc and
llvm-gcc. This amounts to a fairly accurate measure of only the time
to perform semantic analysis (and parsing, in the case of gcc and llvm-gcc).</p>
@@ -110,12 +110,12 @@
involves a large amount of code generation. The time spent in Clang's
LLVM IR generation and code generation is on par with gcc's code
generation time but the improved parsing & semantic analysis
-performance means Clang still comes in at ~29% faster verse gcc
-on <tt>-S -O0 -g</tt> and ~20% faster verse llvm-gcc.</p>
+performance means Clang still comes in at ~29% faster versus gcc
+on <tt>-S -O0 -g</tt> and ~20% faster versus llvm-gcc.</p>
<p>These numbers indicate that Clang still has room for improvement in
several areas, notably our LLVM IR generation is significantly slower
-than that of llvm-gcc, and both Clang and llvm-gcc both incur a
+than that of llvm-gcc, and both Clang and llvm-gcc incur a
significantly higher cost for adding debugging information compared to
gcc.</p>