[PATCH] C undefined behavior fix

[Horst von Brand]

Bernard Dautrevaux <Dautrevaux@microprocess.com> said:

[...]

> So at least for the first test, gcc-3.1 generates the same (anoying) code as
> 2.95.3. I'm quite sure this is legal, as I can't see in the standard if when
> writing:
> 
> 	volatile unsigned int x:8;
> 
> I define:
> 	1) a volatile 8-bit field to be interpreted as an unsigned int.
> 	2) an 8-bit field which is part of a volatile unsigned int.

If the whole is volatile (x must be inside a struct) make that volatile.
Sounds quite natural to me...
-- 
Horst von Brand			     http://counter.li.org # 22616