doc: Fixup a couple of formatting nits

I noticed a couple of places we used @code{program} instead of
@command{program}.

	gcc/
	* doc/invoke.texi: Replace a couple of @code with @command

diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index 07232c6b33dcbbbfb953098bcce1d2cfc8a984a6..02abac39de86a50c01f8570131bc6cc42f16a144 100644 (file)
--- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ The usual way to run GCC is to run the executable called @command{gcc}, or
 When you compile C++ programs, you should invoke GCC as @command{g++} 
 instead.  @xref{Invoking G++,,Compiling C++ Programs}, 
 for information about the differences in behavior between @command{gcc} 
-and @code{g++} when compiling C++ programs.
+and @command{g++} when compiling C++ programs.
 
 @cindex grouping options
 @cindex options, grouping
@@ -14352,7 +14352,7 @@ Note that it is quite common that execution counts of some part of
 programs depends, for example, on length of temporary file names or
 memory space randomization (that may affect hash-table collision rate).
 Such non-reproducible part of programs may be annotated by
-@code{no_instrument_function} function attribute. @code{gcov-dump} with
+@code{no_instrument_function} function attribute. @command{gcov-dump} with
 @option{-l} can be used to dump gathered data and verify that they are
 indeed reproducible.