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?
