Well not sure why your answer feels impolite and aggressive , but I guess that is cultural and typical written miscommunications syndrome when two trains of thoughts are not aligned in a asynchronous discussions.
So for the record: no - I was genuinely trying to understand what you said.
I was still on my idea from this thread that the OP is receiving integers and thus not a byte. And I probably got lost in translation as I understood you were saying that no need for a union to address LSB and MSB easily, if he were to mask with a byte the integer value designated by an integer pointer that was possibly offset, then the compiler would "get it" and cast the pointer in the right way (like a char pointer I had guessed so that a +1 would address the second byte of the int)
I thought that would be quite an interesting news if that were to be correct so I went to ask the question to you and as I was writing it down I said to myself what they heck - let's try and see.
Given your reaction that definitely was not what you had in mind :) but you totally misread what my train of thoughts.
So yes agree that with a byte pointer and knowing about the indianess of the platform you can do it which is somewhat similar to using a union and letting the compiler handle the byte pointers for you.