fix few typos in filecheck annotations

[klensy]

Inspired by #123886 (comment)

rg -g '*.rs' '//\s+?[\w-]+(-[\w]+):' -r '$1' -oNI | sort -u

Should https://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.html#cmdoption-FileCheck-ignore-case be used for case-insensetive match for filecheck?

[rustbot]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in tests/codegen/sanitizer

cc @rust-lang/project-exploit-mitigations, @rcvalle

[klensy]

Funny thing: rgrepped llvm sources and they contain few the same typos.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

I don't think case-insensitive matching is worthwhile. Some kind of lint in tidy or file check does seem like a potential improvement though.

@bors r+ rollup=iffy

[bors]

📌 Commit d97ed2d has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit d97ed2d with merge 3349155...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Mark-Simulacrum
Pushing 3349155 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (3349155): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.4%	[1.4%, 1.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.4%	[2.4%, 2.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.1%	[3.1%, 3.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.4%	[2.4%, 2.4%]	1

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.7%	[2.7%, 2.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 675.433s -> 673.703s (-0.26%)
Artifact size: 316.00 MiB -> 315.98 MiB (-0.01%)