http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de> --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #10) > > 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. No. You only assume an alias if _both_ fields are bit fields. But in my example only one "a" is a volatile bit field the other is a normal member "b".
