Apply suggestions from code review

Co-Authored-By: Mazdak Farrokhzad <twingoow@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: Ralf Jung <post@ralfj.de>

Author: 3 people

src/librustc_codegen_llvm/attributes.rs

@@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ pub fn from_fn_attrs(
         //
         // However, in the long term we should either:
         // - fold this into final else (i.e. stop inspecting `id`)
-        // - or better still: whole-heartedly adopt Rust PR #63909.
+        // - adopt Rust PR #63909.
         //
         // see also Rust RFC 2753.
 
@@ -294,7 +294,7 @@ pub fn from_fn_attrs(
         } else {
             // Anything else is either:
             //
-            //  1. A foreign item (like `extern "C" { fn foo(); }`), or
+            //  1. A foreign item using a non-Rust ABI (like `extern "C" { fn foo(); }`), or
             //
             //  2. A Rust item using a non-Rust ABI (like `extern "C" fn foo() { ... }`).
             //

src/test/ui/extern/issue-64655-allow-unwind-when-calling-panic-directly.rs

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 // run-pass
 
 // rust-lang/rust#64655: with panic=unwind, a panic from a subroutine
-// should still run desstructors as it unwindws the stack. However,
+// should still run destructors as it unwinds the stack. However,
 // bugs with how the nounwind LLVM attribute was applied led to this
 // simple case being mishandled *if* you had fat LTO turned on.
 
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ fn main() {
 
     let wait = handle.join();
 
-    // reinstate handler to ease observation of assertion failures.
+    // Reinstate handler to ease observation of assertion failures.
     std::panic::set_hook(old_hook);
 
     assert!(wait.is_err());

src/test/ui/extern/issue-64655-extern-rust-must-allow-unwind.rs

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 // run-pass
 
 // rust-lang/rust#64655: with panic=unwind, a panic from a subroutine
-// should still run desstructors as it unwinds the stack. However,
+// should still run destructors as it unwinds the stack. However,
 // bugs with how the nounwind LLVM attribute was applied led to this
 // simple case being mishandled *if* you had optimization *and* fat
 // LTO turned on.
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
 // This test takes the code from the above issue and adapts it to
 // better fit our test infrastructure:
 //
-// * Instead of relying on println! to observe whether the destructor
+// * Instead of relying on `println!` to observe whether the destructor
 //   is run, we instead run the code in a spawned thread and
 //   communicate the destructor's operation via a synchronous atomic
 //   in static memory.