Correct spelling in docs

casts.md

@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ For numeric casts, there are quite a few cases to consider:
     * zero-extend if the source is unsigned
     * sign-extend if the source is signed
 * casting from a float to an integer will round the float towards zero
-    * **[NOTE: currently this will cause Undefined Behaviour if the rounded
+    * **[NOTE: currently this will cause Undefined Behavior if the rounded
       value cannot be represented by the target integer type][float-int]**.
       This includes Inf and NaN. This is a bug and will be fixed.
 * casting from an integer to float will produce the floating point
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ For numeric casts, there are quite a few cases to consider:
 * casting from an f32 to an f64 is perfect and lossless
 * casting from an f64 to an f32 will produce the closest possible value
   (rounding strategy unspecified)
-    * **[NOTE: currently this will cause Undefined Behaviour if the value
+    * **[NOTE: currently this will cause Undefined Behavior if the value
       is finite but larger or smaller than the largest or smallest finite
       value representable by f32][float-float]**. This is a bug and will
       be fixed.

dropck.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ interacted with the *outlives* relationship in an inclusive manner. That is,
 when we talked about `'a: 'b`, it was ok for `'a` to live *exactly* as long as
 `'b`. At first glance, this seems to be a meaningless distinction. Nothing ever
 gets dropped at the same time as another, right? This is why we used the
-following desugarring of `let` statements:
+following desugaring of `let` statements:
 
 ```rust,ignore
 let x;

exotic-sizes.md

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ information that "completes" them (more on this below).
 There are two major DSTs exposed by the language: trait objects, and slices.
 
 A trait object represents some type that implements the traits it specifies.
-The exact original type is *erased* in favour of runtime reflection
+The exact original type is *erased* in favor of runtime reflection
 with a vtable containing all the information necessary to use the type.
 This is the information that completes a trait object: a pointer to its vtable.
 
@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ But neither of these tricks work today, so all Void types get you is
 the ability to be confident that certain situations are statically impossible.
 
 One final subtle detail about empty types is that raw pointers to them are
-actually valid to construct, but dereferencing them is Undefined Behaviour
+actually valid to construct, but dereferencing them is Undefined Behavior
 because that doesn't actually make sense. That is, you could model C's `void *`
 type with `*const Void`, but this doesn't necessarily gain anything over using
 e.g. `*const ()`, which *is* safe to randomly dereference.

leaking.md

@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ let mut vec = vec![Box::new(0); 4];
 println!("{}", vec[0]);
 ```
 
-This is pretty clearly Not Good. Unfortunately, we're kind've stuck between a
+This is pretty clearly Not Good. Unfortunately, we're kind of stuck between a
 rock and a hard place: maintaining consistent state at every step has an
 enormous cost (and would negate any benefits of the API). Failing to maintain
 consistent state gives us Undefined Behavior in safe code (making the API
@@ -248,4 +248,4 @@ let mut data = Box::new(0);
 ```
 
 Dang. Here the destructor running was pretty fundamental to the API, and it had
-to be scrapped in favour of a completely different design.
+to be scrapped in favor of a completely different design.

meet-safe-and-unsafe.md

@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ do some really crazy unsafe things.
 
 Safe Rust is the *true* Rust programming language. If all you do is write Safe
 Rust, you will never have to worry about type-safety or memory-safety. You will
-never endure a null or dangling pointer, or any of that Undefined Behaviour
+never endure a null or dangling pointer, or any of that Undefined Behavior
 nonsense.
 
 *That's totally awesome.*
@@ -52,11 +52,11 @@ The only things that are different in Unsafe Rust are that you can:
 * Mutate statics
 
 That's it. The reason these operations are relegated to Unsafe is that misusing
-any of these things will cause the ever dreaded Undefined Behaviour. Invoking
+any of these things will cause the ever dreaded Undefined Behavior. Invoking
-Undefined Behaviour gives the compiler full rights to do arbitrarily bad things
+Undefined Behavior gives the compiler full rights to do arbitrarily bad things
-to your program. You definitely *should not* invoke Undefined Behaviour.
+to your program. You definitely *should not* invoke Undefined Behavior.
 
-Unlike C, Undefined Behaviour is pretty limited in scope in Rust. All the core
+Unlike C, Undefined Behavior is pretty limited in scope in Rust. All the core
 language cares about is preventing the following things:
 
 * Dereferencing null or dangling pointers
@@ -71,9 +71,9 @@ language cares about is preventing the following things:
 * Unwinding into another language
 * Causing a [data race][race]
 
-That's it. That's all the causes of Undefined Behaviour baked into Rust. Of
+That's it. That's all the causes of Undefined Behavior baked into Rust. Of
 course, unsafe functions and traits are free to declare arbitrary other
-constraints that a program must maintain to avoid Undefined Behaviour. However,
+constraints that a program must maintain to avoid Undefined Behavior. However,
 generally violations of these constraints will just transitively lead to one of
 the above problems. Some additional constraints may also derive from compiler
 intrinsics that make special assumptions about how code can be optimized.

races.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ Safe Rust guarantees an absence of data races, which are defined as:
 * one of them is a write
 * one of them is unsynchronized
 
-A data race has Undefined Behaviour, and is therefore impossible to perform
+A data race has Undefined Behavior, and is therefore impossible to perform
 in Safe Rust. Data races are *mostly* prevented through rust's ownership system:
 it's impossible to alias a mutable reference, so it's impossible to perform a
 data race. Interior mutability makes this more complicated, which is largely why
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ thread::spawn(move || {
 // bounds checked, and there's no chance of the value getting changed
 // in the middle. However our program may panic if the thread we spawned
 // managed to increment before this ran. A race condition because correct
-// program execution (panicing is rarely correct) depends on order of
+// program execution (panicking is rarely correct) depends on order of
 // thread execution.
 println!("{}", data[idx.load(Ordering::SeqCst)]);
 ```

safe-unsafe-meaning.md

@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ Some examples of unsafe functions:
 
 * `slice::get_unchecked` will perform unchecked indexing, allowing memory
   safety to be freely violated.
-* `ptr::offset` is an intrinsic that invokes Undefined Behaviour if it is
+* `ptr::offset` is an intrinsic that invokes Undefined Behavior if it is
   not "in bounds" as defined by LLVM.
 * `mem::transmute` reinterprets some value as having the given type,
   bypassing type safety in arbitrary ways. (see [conversions] for details)
@@ -59,9 +59,9 @@ As of Rust 1.0 there are exactly two unsafe traits:
 The need for unsafe traits boils down to the fundamental property of safe code:
 
 **No matter how completely awful Safe code is, it can't cause Undefined
-Behaviour.**
+Behavior.**
 
-This means that Unsafe Rust, **the royal vanguard of Undefined Behaviour**, has to be
+This means that Unsafe Rust, **the royal vanguard of Undefined Behavior**, has to be
 *super paranoid* about generic safe code. To be clear, Unsafe Rust is totally free to trust
 specific safe code. Anything else would degenerate into infinite spirals of
 paranoid despair. In particular it's generally regarded as ok to trust the standard library

send-and-sync.md

@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ implement, and other unsafe code can assume that they are correctly
 implemented. Since they're *marker traits* (they have no associated items like
 methods), correctly implemented simply means that they have the intrinsic
 properties an implementor should have. Incorrectly implementing Send or Sync can
-cause Undefined Behaviour.
+cause Undefined Behavior.
 
 Send and Sync are also automatically derived traits. This means that, unlike
 every other trait, if a type is composed entirely of Send or Sync types, then it

transmutes.md

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ horribly unsafe thing you can do in Rust. The railguards here are dental floss.
 
 `mem::transmute<T, U>` takes a value of type `T` and reinterprets it to have
 type `U`. The only restriction is that the `T` and `U` are verified to have the
-same size. The ways to cause Undefined Behaviour with this are mind boggling.
+same size. The ways to cause Undefined Behavior with this are mind boggling.
 
 * First and foremost, creating an instance of *any* type with an invalid state
   is going to cause arbitrary chaos that can't really be predicted.
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ same size. The ways to cause Undefined Behaviour with this are mind boggling.
 `mem::transmute_copy<T, U>` somehow manages to be *even more* wildly unsafe than
 this. It copies `size_of<U>` bytes out of an `&T` and interprets them as a `U`.
 The size check that `mem::transmute` has is gone (as it may be valid to copy
-out a prefix), though it is Undefined Behaviour for `U` to be larger than `T`.
+out a prefix), though it is Undefined Behavior for `U` to be larger than `T`.
 
 Also of course you can get most of the functionality of these functions using
 pointer casts.

unbounded-lifetimes.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 Unsafe code can often end up producing references or lifetimes out of thin air.
 Such lifetimes come into the world as *unbounded*. The most common source of this
-is derefencing a raw pointer, which produces a reference with an unbounded lifetime.
+is dereferencing a raw pointer, which produces a reference with an unbounded lifetime.
 Such a lifetime becomes as big as context demands. This is in fact more powerful
 than simply becoming `'static`, because for instance `&'static &'a T`
 will fail to typecheck, but the unbound lifetime will perfectly mold into
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ will fail to typecheck, but the unbound lifetime will perfectly mold into
 lifetime can be regarded as `'static`.
 
 Almost no reference is `'static`, so this is probably wrong. `transmute` and
-`transmute_copy` are the two other primary offenders. One should endeavour to
+`transmute_copy` are the two other primary offenders. One should endeavor to
 bound an unbounded lifetime as quick as possible, especially across function
 boundaries.
 

unchecked-uninit.md

@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ dropping the old value: `write`, `copy`, and `copy_nonoverlapping`.
   (this is equivalent to memcpy -- note that the argument order is reversed!)
 
 It should go without saying that these functions, if misused, will cause serious
-havoc or just straight up Undefined Behaviour. The only things that these
+havoc or just straight up Undefined Behavior. The only things that these
 functions *themselves* require is that the locations you want to read and write
 are allocated. However the ways writing arbitrary bits to arbitrary
 locations of memory can break things are basically uncountable!

uninitialized.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ All runtime-allocated memory in a Rust program begins its life as
 *uninitialized*. In this state the value of the memory is an indeterminate pile
 of bits that may or may not even reflect a valid state for the type that is
 supposed to inhabit that location of memory. Attempting to interpret this memory
-as a value of *any* type will cause Undefined Behaviour. Do Not Do This.
+as a value of *any* type will cause Undefined Behavior. Do Not Do This.
 
 Rust provides mechanisms to work with uninitialized memory in checked (safe) and
-unchecked (unsafe) ways.
+unchecked (unsafe) ways.

unwinding.md

@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ should only panic for programming errors or *extreme* problems.
 
 Rust's unwinding strategy is not specified to be fundamentally compatible
 with any other language's unwinding. As such, unwinding into Rust from another
-language, or unwinding into another language from Rust is Undefined Behaviour.
+language, or unwinding into another language from Rust is Undefined Behavior.
 You must *absolutely* catch any panics at the FFI boundary! What you do at that
 point is up to you, but *something* must be done. If you fail to do this,
 at best, your application will crash and burn. At worst, your application *won't*

vec-layout.md

@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ pub struct Vec<T> {
 If you don't care about the null-pointer optimization, then you can use the
 stable code. However we will be designing the rest of the code around enabling
 the optimization. In particular, `Unique::new` is unsafe to call, because
-putting `null` inside of it is Undefined Behaviour. Our stable Unique doesn't
+putting `null` inside of it is Undefined Behavior. Our stable Unique doesn't
 need `new` to be unsafe because it doesn't make any interesting guarantees about
 its contents.
 

vec-push-pop.md

@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ Easy! How about `pop`? Although this time the index we want to access is
 initialized, Rust won't just let us dereference the location of memory to move
 the value out, because that would leave the memory uninitialized! For this we
 need `ptr::read`, which just copies out the bits from the target address and
-intrprets it as a value of type T. This will leave the memory at this address
+interprets it as a value of type T. This will leave the memory at this address
 logically uninitialized, even though there is in fact a perfectly good instance
 of T there.
 

vec-zsts.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 % Handling Zero-Sized Types
 
-It's time. We're going to fight the spectre that is zero-sized types. Safe Rust
+It's time. We're going to fight the specter that is zero-sized types. Safe Rust
 *never* needs to care about this, but Vec is very intensive on raw pointers and
 raw allocations, which are exactly the two things that care about
 zero-sized types. We need to be careful of two things: