Hi Oleg, I think both variants should fix the issues for us.
But I cannot tell if the bitfield access generates more efficient code or identical code than the original variant when no ms bitfields are used. That needs closer inspection of the generated assembler code, a simple bootstrap / regtest will probably not be sufficient. But my thought is if the -mms-bitfields option has such an impact on this structure, then it would be good if there was a built-in define that can be used to adjust to and/or diagnose the problem at compile time. I think that is missing right now, but wouldn't it be nice to have a define like __MS_BITFIELD_LAYOUT__ ? Bernd.
