I should correct that: automake builds things by creating makefiles. The configure script created by autoconf is concerned with configuration rather than building, but its output is input to automake.

CMake, Scons, etc. are mainly targeted at dependency-based building of programs. Autotools doesn't really build anything. It goes through a long list of system facilities, determining if each is present. For many, perhaps most of them, it builds a little C program that exercises the facility, and sees if it compiles.

Now, there's another poster who says you really can do this with CMake, which I'll have to look at.

This isn't really a problem for StackOverflow. It's a problem for the developers of GCC and its libraries, and a policy problem for the overall GNU project in that Autotools is IMO too much of a mess to live, and is a barrier to participation as it stands. That's why I talk about it here instead of just submitting it as a bug report.

I would like to see someone come up with an alternative. That alternative is not CMake or Scons, etc., because those are build systems rather than systems that probe a platform for fine differences in the programming environment and produce a set of macro switches as output.

Yes, I can get a pre-built toolchain or a building kit, but it doesn't really solve the problem of not being able to build the current GCC with the right settings in its configure script and to use it with the right C library and kernel headers for my device. Should I modify any of those toolchain kits to do that, they'll come up with the same errors.

Besides devKitARM, there is the collection of toolchains mentioned here. I am getting most of my clues from the Emcraft toolchain, which is the only one for the SmartFusion. And we're great friends with Emcraft, but I want something a bit newer and a different build-tree style.

My last approach to the libstdc++ mailing list, here, was left unanswered. I figured out the problem behind that one, but it would have been nice to get some advice.

Autoconf doesn't have a --synclines flag, but I might be able to pass it in the M4 environment variable. I'll give it a try.

I've been configuring a toolchain for Algoram's programmable radio transceiver, which has a SmartFusion 2 containing a Cortex M3. Until today, I've been working with GCC 5.1. Building GCC for cross-compilation on a no-MMU, no-FP processor and a software platform that doesn't support shared libraries isn't trivial, though it should be. GCC has many configure scripts, one for each library that it builds and at least one for the compiler. You run across many configure issues which are difficult to debug. For example, the configure file, a macro-expanded shell script, doesn't have source code line numbers from its configure.ac file. Error messages do not in general indicate the actual problem, and are difficult to trace. Figuring out what to fix is far from trivial. I ended up not being able to use multilibs (which would have allowed me to build for FP processors like Cortex M4F as well), couldn't link in ISL, couldn't build libjava.

Some of these are beginner problems - I'm new to building cross-toolchains and have avoided autotools as much as possible before this project. But not all of them.

One would think that we could build a better system today than such voluminous M4 and shell. Perhaps basing it on a test framework might be the right approach.

First of all, this is really old news. SpaceShip One no longer flies and has been a museum piece for years, and Virgin's burned their bridges with Scaled Composites and thus made it a lot less likely that they will be able to mount a near space effort with the SpaceShip Two design.

Second, this is not an orbital re-entry system, because it's not well-suited for a heat shield and thus can't do the necessary atmospheric braking. It's just a system to get you back from high altitude suborbital flights.

You make a good emotional appeal, but the reality is that someone just casually sharing a song isn't likely to be subject to these penalties at all.

That's sort of like saying the penalty against burglary would only be used against someone who steals the Crown Jewels.

If the law specifies a minimum offense at all, you can be sure that anyone reaching that minimum is at risk. We've had very many documented civil copyright trolls going after otherwise un-notable individuals, and thus abuse of criminal law is certain.

It would have to be many farads, this isn't a car stereo. The problem is how to gate the power after such a large capacitor. You're right that it could increase the momentary current. But that's also the problem. Their "contactor", a mechanical switch, has had to be upgraded with exotic alloy to deal with heating. And if you try to gate the power before it, you end up feeding what is very close to a short circuit while it charges.

I've had a number of nice conversations with attorneys over the years. They range from specific real cases and current news events, to totally hypothetical events. Frequently, you'll hear "it depends on the judge". Different judges have different opinions. One may side with you totally, while another will be annoyed that you even attempt to reference a particular thing. That's the biggest thing a local attorney who knows the judge will give you.

In his case, one judge may like that he had no intention of violating the IP of the other. Another may prefer to hear that the violation was coincidental. And a third may not care and put him on the hook for a stack of damages.

Asking for legal help here and expecting an answer that can be used is totally different. An attorney doesn't have all the facts, doesn't know the jurisdiction, and would open themselves up to legal trouble.

If the advice is valid in the attorney's jurisdiction, but not the OP, he could come back and blame the attorney.

If the attorney is giving advice outside of the area where he is licensed, he can run into trouble.

If there's something significant that changes the case, then he gave bad advice.

And just like the aforementioned car analogy, a mechanic online can't give the answer to "what is that noise". That thump may be a flat tire, the bass is turned up too loud, or any number of things.

If not, he can ask Bill Cosby for advice.

It all depends on what the "common English word" is. Apple. Blackberry. Chase. Delta. EvilCorp. Fire. ... You get the idea. (I couldn't resist EvilCorp. Sorry).

Even if he was explicitly clear, there are a few points.

1) None of us are attorneys specializing in trademark law.

2) Even if there are such attorneys here, they would say "But I'm not your attorney until you retain me, so I cannot answer."

3) If the guy is just asking for a word from the description to be removed, fuck it, remove the word. He doesn't have the funds to fight it. When he has the money to pay an attorney to deal with the USPTO, Google and the opposing party, that's when he has something to work with. If it's as weak as he implies, he could potentially get the trademark invalidated and then sue for damages from lost revenue by complying (but not admitting guilt) with the initial C&D in a timely and good faith manner.

That actual trademark attorney may just say at the initial consultation, "This isn't worth my time. File form xyz yourself with the USPTO to get it invalidated, and then go back to Google with it." I've heard lawyers say that plenty of times, when there isn't enough money to be had.

They may even direct him to a group like EFF or ACLU, who would take it on principle, or even another attorney who is already defending other targets of this troll.

As not an attorney, nothing above is to be considered advice of any sort. What follows is.

Contact an attorney. Get the free or few hundred dollar consult.

You know, you can just put Classic Shell on, and it looks and behaves almost identically to Win7. The only significant change I see in 8.1 once you get out of Metro is the task manager is a bit better.

I know that making one change is a significant hardship to most people. It's probably not as hard as explaining why they can't run Windows programs. Or at least trying to explain why particular programs don't work under Wine.

This is a fun device that can show you what can be done with 3D printed plastic. That said, it's useless. It would be really cool if I could apply 1 pound of force to the crank, turn it a Million times, and have it apply a Million pounds of rotational force at the other end. But it's made of plastic, so it won't do that. Indeed, the fast-rotating parts would wear out before the slow-rotating part made a single turn. So it's not even good as a kind of clock.

All that said, it's a good conversation piece, and probably worth the price for that.

Good corporate management types can spew that stuff on demand. Pacify the angry mobs, and don't promise anything. Hell, that's most of their job.