> I see. Though the code does not affect layout but only access "layout" > for bitfields. I'm fine with fixing the issues we run into elsewhere, > just the langhook is a possibility I had in mind from the start, in > case frontends differ in their memory model for bitfields.
Understood. According to our internal testing, the issue we're discussing was the last problem introduced by the bitfield change, and I think that using the C/C++ model for C/C++-compatible bit fields is fine for GNAT. May I apply the patch I posted? It boostrapped/regtested fine on x86-64/Linux. -- Eric Botcazou