https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804

--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo <olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #25)
> I have no particular concerns with dropping the bitfield code, but clearly it
> has to be tested on a couple of little-endian platforms.

Can we try to narrow it down what to look for?
At the moment, I can think of only two things which can go wrong:

1) sizeof (struct bits) != 8, i.e. this case here.
It wouldn't be working anyway.  Actually there should be a static_assert

2) bit order of bit-field access differs from shift-and-mask access.
What could be causing this?

Reply via email to