> This patch makes bit_field_mode_iterator take -fstrict-volatile-bitfields > into account, in cases where the size of the underlying object is known. > This is used in the next patch.
Do we really need to add that to the iterator? The -fstrict-volatile- bitfields implementation is still controversial so I'm not sure that we want let it spread. Can't the client code just skip the problematic modes? -- Eric Botcazou
