http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > there is one more thing to consider for your proposed patch, > that is the damned -fstrict-volatile-bitfields: > > if strict_volatile_bitfields>0 and the BIT_FIELD access > is _volatile_ it does not respect the BIT_FIELD_REPRESENTATIVE at all. My patch as written doesn't use BIT_FIELD_REPRESENTATIVE so it isn't affected.
