https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89251
--- Comment #4 from Kochise <david.koch at libertysurf dot fr> --- The pointer I access is volatile, not the uint32_t behind. Why would I ? The 'volatile' keyword has no meaning to change the data size being processed, only removing the caching behavior of the compiler. If the compiler can decide to change the specified size of non-volatile datatypes, you really must consider reviewing some common practices. I wanted this to be uint32_t, keep it that way, thanks. Where in the standard is written that bitfield could be resized out from their base datatype ? What's the point anyway ? And 'volatile' would "prevent that" ? How unfriendly...
