http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31963
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-28 02:46:48 UTC --- Here is what the docs say about this option: @item --disable-stage1-checking @itemx --enable-stage1-checking @itemx --enable-stage1-checking=@var{list} If no @option{--enable-checking} option is specified the stage1 compiler will be built with @samp{yes} checking enabled, otherwise the stage1 checking flags are the same as specified by @option{--enable-checking}. To build the stage1 compiler with different checking options use @option{--enable-stage1-checking}. The list of checking options is the same as for @option{--enable-checking}. If your system is too slow or too small to bootstrap a released compiler with checking for stage1 enabled, you can use @samp{--disable-stage1-checking} to disable checking for the stage1 compiler. --- CUT --- Lets look at it a different way than using restaurants but rather offspring since that is what is really happening here. We have a parent (the current system GCC), a child (stage1), a grand-child (stage2) and a great-grand-child (stage3). Basically --enable-stage1-checking saying is the child a boy or a girl. --enable-checking is saying is the grand-child and the great-grand-child a boy or a girl. Does this make sense now of why this option is named what is named?