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?
