Change bold code snippets to inline code blocks

14-06.md

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ Table 14.1 represents a limited and decidedly unscientific comparison of
 searching techniques. Nonetheless, the overall trend is clear: For all
 but the shortest patterns, well-implemented Boyer-Moore is generally as
 good as or better than—sometimes *much* better than—brute-force
-searching. (For short patterns, you might want to use **REPNZ SCASB,**
+searching. (For short patterns, you might want to use `REPNZ SCASB`,
 thereby getting the best of both worlds.)
 
 Know your data and use your smarts. Don't stop thinking just because
@@ -25,8 +25,8 @@ you're implementing a big-name algorithm; you know more than it does.
 We can do substantially better yet than Listing 14.3 if we're willing to
 accept tighter limits on the data. Limiting the length of the
 searched-for pattern to a maximum of 255 bytes allows us to use the
-**XLAT** instruction and generally tighten the critical loop. (Be aware,
-however, that **XLAT** is a relatively expensive instruction on the 486
+`XLAT` instruction and generally tighten the critical loop. (Be aware,
+however, that `XLAT` is a relatively expensive instruction on the 486
 and Pentium.) Putting a copy of the searched-for string at the end of
 the search buffer as a sentinel, so that the search never fails, frees
 us from counting down the buffer length, and makes it easy to unroll the
@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ _FindString     endp
 ```
 
 Note that Table 14.1 includes the time required to build the skip table
-each time **FindString** is called. This time could be eliminated for
+each time `FindString` is called. This time could be eliminated for
 all but the first search when repeatedly searching for a particular
 pattern, by building the skip table externally and passing a pointer to
 it as a parameter.