Crazy idea: just write a C99 or C++03 -conforming program in the first place
I would suggest not using vendor-specific C language extensions to match device or network bit formats. Even if you get the fields to line up using a series of one-per-vendor language extensions, you still have byte order to worry about, and you still have a struct layout that requires extra instructions to access.
You can write a C99 conforming program that will work on any architecture or host and at maximum speed and cache efficiency by using the standardized C API string and memory copy functions and the Posix hton and ntoh functions.
A good practice is to use the following functions for which there exist published standards:
C99: memcpy(), Posix: htonl(), htons(), ntohl(), ntohs()
Update: here is some code that should work the same everywhere. You may need to get <stdint.h>
from this project if Microsoft still hasn't implemented it for C99, or just make the usual assumptions about int sizes.
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <arpa/inet.h>
struct packed_with_bit_fields { // ONLY FOR COMPARISON
unsigned int a : 3;
unsigned int b : 1;
unsigned int c : 15;
unsigned int troubleMaker : 16;
unsigned short padding : 13;
} __attribute__((packed)); // USED ONLY TO COMPARE IMPLEMENTATIONS
struct unpacked { // THIS IS THE EXAMPLE STRUCT
uint32_t a;
uint32_t b;
uint32_t c;
uint32_t troubleMaker;
}; // NOTE NOT PACKED
struct unpacked su;
struct packed_with_bit_fields sp;
char *bits = "Lorem ipsum dolor";
int main(int ac, char **av) {
uint32_t x; // byte order issues ignored in both cases
// This should work with any environment and compiler
memcpy(&x, bits, 4);
su.a = x & 7;
su.b = x >> 3 & 1;
su.c = x >> 4 & 0x7fff;
memcpy(&x, bits + 2, 4);
su.troubleMaker = x >> 3 & 0xffff;
// This section works only with gcc
memcpy(&sp, bits, 6);
printf( sp.a == su.a
&& sp.b == su.b
&& sp.c == su.c
&& sp.troubleMaker == su.troubleMaker
? "conforming and gcc implementations match\n" : "huh?\n");
return 0;
}