Bit-fields of type other than int?

Why not use int? The actual implementation of bitfields varies from compiler to compiler. If you want to write portable code, use int. If you want to create a small structure, or a structure of a fixed number of bytes, or a structure where the bits are in a fixed position, don't use bitfields. Create a uint8_t member called something like flags and define macros to use as bitmasks.

1] Is there any problems/potential issues in using bit fields of type other than int? Why the warning?

Since bit-fields are low-level, there may be issues with portability if you are using non-standard types. Hence the warning -- note it is still a warning and not an error.

2] Are other than int type bit-fileds they allowed by C99 C language specification?

From the draft of C99:

6.7.2.1 Structure and union specifiers

4 A bit-field shall have a type that is a qualified or unqualified version of _Bool, signed int, unsigned int, or some other implementation-defined type.