> Once upon a time, the --disable-bootstrap configure option wasn't > necessary. "make" built gcc, and "make bootstrap" bootstrapped it. > > Is this behavior useful? Should we have it back again?
Is this a genuine question or some subtle attempt at mimicing Paul Eggert's cleverness to spark your own gigantic thread? :-) Certainly, doing a mere build with "make" and a complete bootstrap with "make bootstrap" was rather reasonable, but you and other build machinery wizards convinced us that this would be a pain to support with toplevel bootstrap. So what has changed? -- Eric Botcazou
