From: tkoenig@netcologne.de   
      
   Anton Ertl  schrieb:   
   > Thomas Koenig  writes:   
   >>(Looking at your   
   >>code, it also does not seem to be self-sufficient, at least the   
   >>numerous SKIP4 statements require something else).   
   >   
   > If you want to assemble the resulting .S file, it's assembled once   
   > with   
   >   
   > -DSKIP4= -Dgforth_engine2=gforth_engine   
   >   
   > and once with   
   >   
   > -DSKIP4=".skip 4"   
   >   
   > (on Linux-GNU AMD64, the .skip assembler directive is autoconfigured   
   > and may be different on other platforms).   
   >   
   >>My assumption is that the control flow is confusing gcc.   
   >   
   > My guess is the same.   
      
   Both our guesses were wrong, and Scott (I think) was on the right   
   track - this is a signed / unsigned issue.  A reduced test case is   
      
   void bar(unsigned long, long);   
      
   void foo(unsigned long u1)   
   {   
     long u3;   
     u1 = u1 / 10;   
     u3 = u1 % 10;   
     bar(u1,u3);   
   }   
      
   This is now https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=122911 .   
      
   --   
   This USENET posting was made without artificial intelligence,   
   artificial impertinence, artificial arrogance, artificial stupidity,   
   artificial flavorings or artificial colorants.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)