From c890a023d19c0183b99c0c2a92a3095bc30b0d51 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: mattip
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 09:00:22 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] fix links in release notes
---
.../first-pypy-cli-jit-benchmarks-6698484455072589492.html | 4 ++--
posts/2010/03/hello-5058108566628405592.html | 6 +++---
...lg-support-in-pypynumpy-comment-3338463064440291817.html | 2 +-
.../03/.pypy-251-released-comment-6594177931272237550.html | 2 +-
...-make-your-code-80-times-faster-1424098117108093942.html | 4 ++--
posts/2021/04/pypy-v734-release-of-python-27-and-37.txt | 4 ++--
posts/2021/05/pypy-v735-release.rst | 4 ++--
posts/2021/10/pypy-v737-release.rst | 4 ++--
posts/2022/02/pypyv738-release.txt | 4 ++--
posts/2022/03/pypyv739-release.rst | 4 ++--
posts/2022/12/pypy-v7310-release.txt | 4 ++--
posts/2022/12/pypy-v7311-release.txt | 4 ++--
posts/2023/06/pypy-v7312-release.txt | 4 ++--
posts/2023/09/pypy-v7313-release.txt | 4 ++--
posts/2023/12/pypy-v7314-release.txt | 4 ++--
posts/2024/01/pypy-v7315-release.txt | 4 ++--
posts/2024/04/pypy-v7316-release.txt | 4 ++--
posts/2024/08/pypy-v7317-release.txt | 4 ++--
posts/2025/02/pypy-v7318-release.txt | 4 ++--
19 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
diff --git a/posts/2009/10/first-pypy-cli-jit-benchmarks-6698484455072589492.html b/posts/2009/10/first-pypy-cli-jit-benchmarks-6698484455072589492.html
index 1d696f406..da2737d80 100644
--- a/posts/2009/10/first-pypy-cli-jit-benchmarks-6698484455072589492.html
+++ b/posts/2009/10/first-pypy-cli-jit-benchmarks-6698484455072589492.html
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
course, things are improving very quickly so it should become more and more
stable as days pass.
For this time, I decided to run four benchmarks. Note that for all of them we
-run the main function once in advance, to let the JIT recoginizing the hot
+run the main function once in advance, to let the JIT recognize the hot
loops and emitting the corresponding code. Thus, the results reported do
not include the time spent by the JIT compiler itself, but give a good
measure of how good is the code generated by the JIT. At this point in time,
@@ -137,4 +137,4 @@
The next step is probably to find an alternative implementation that does not
use tail calls: this probably will also improve the time spent by the JIT
compiler itself, which is not reported in the numbers above but that so far it
-is surely too high to be acceptable. Stay tuned.