On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, Zoltán Kócsi wrote:

> I wonder if there would be at least a theoretical support by the
> developers to a proposal for volatile bitfields:

It has been proposed (and not rejected, but not yet implemented) that 
volatile bit-fields should follow the ARM EABI specification (on all 
targets); that certainly seems better than inventing something new unless 
you have a very good reason to prefer the something new on some targets.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com