Okay, make the prose match the example too.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@29697 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
diff --git a/docs/GetElementPtr.html b/docs/GetElementPtr.html
index 49c3e65..08d8006 100644
--- a/docs/GetElementPtr.html
+++ b/docs/GetElementPtr.html
@@ -78,12 +78,13 @@
AType* Foo;
...
X = &Foo->F;</pre>
- <p>it is natural to think that there is only one index, the constant value
- <tt>1</tt>. This results from C allowing you to treat pointers and arrays as
- equivalent. LLVM doesn't. In this example, Foo is a pointer. That pointer must
- be indexed. To arrive at the same address location as the C code, you would
- provide the GEP instruction with two indices. The first indexes through the
- pointer, the second index the element of the structure just as if it was:</p>
+ <p>it is natural to think that there is only one index, the selection of the
+ field <tt>F</tt>. However, in this example, <tt>Foo</tt> is a pointer. That
+ pointer must be indexed explicitly in LLVM. C, on the other hand, indexs
+ through it ransparently. To arrive at the same address location as the C
+ code, you would provide the GEP instruction with two index operands. The
+ first operand indexes through the pointer; the second operand indexes the
+ field <tt>F</tt> of the structure, just as if you wrote:</p>
<pre>
X = &Foo[0].F;</pre>
<p>Sometimes this question gets rephrased as:</p>