Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Message-ID: From: "Christopher Jones" To: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Subject: RE: New Cygwin Net Release (make error) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 14:58:51 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFA968.2331BE7E" ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFA968.2331BE7E Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I'm trying the new net release and ran across a problem with make which seems a little weird. It doesn't happen all the time either, more on that later. Here is the error message. make --directory=types --unix -w recursive assertion "*p2 != '\0'" failed: file "/src/make/read.c", line 866 0 [sig] make 1232 stackdump: Dumping stack trace to make.exe.stackdump make --directory=util --unix -w recursive I took a look at the source but it simply indicates what happened should never happen. Guess that assumption was wrong. ;) I'm trying to dig into why it happened and if I can fix something on my end but this didn't happen with b20.1 so I thought someone else might be interested. Brian ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFA968.2331BE7E Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: New Cygwin Net Release (make error)

I'm trying the new net release and ran across a = problem with make which seems a little weird.  It doesn't happen = all the time either, more on that later.  Here is the error = message.

make --directory=3Dtypes --unix -w recursive
assertion "*p2 !=3D '\0'" failed: file = "/src/make/read.c", line 866
      0 [sig] make 1232 = stackdump: Dumping stack trace to make.exe.stackdump
make --directory=3Dutil --unix -w recursive

I took a look at the source but it simply indicates = what happened should never happen.  Guess that assumption was = wrong.  ;)

I'm trying to dig into why it happened and if I can = fix something on my end but this didn't happen with b20.1 so I thought = someone else might be interested.

Brian

------_=_NextPart_001_01BFA968.2331BE7E--