On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 12:18:53AM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > 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? :-)
Ahem. > 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? Not much. I'm convinced it would be feasible, but definitely not easy, so I wanted to see how much interest there was - seems like some, but not a lot. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery
