If ubyte is greater than or equal to 128, then converting it to a signed 32-bit integer (as on a 32 bit machine) and then shifting it left by 24 causes signed integer overflow. This is undefined behavior. Therefore the compiler is allowed to make optimizations that assume ubyte is less than 128.
And you are the person who replied to my earlier post saying "don't do things that do not have intuitively clear semantics." Do integer promotion rules count as intuitively clear semantics? Most C programmers never learned them and therefore the semantics is confusing. For the few C programmers who learned them, the semantics is clearer when they can remember the rules, and confusing otherwise.
Now I hope I've convinced you that there are a lot of such subtle semantics issues in C, and hardly anything is intuitively clear, unless you've been a language lawyer or programmed in C for long enough.
It seems I've never really done "overshifting", otherwise I would have easily noticed that the shifted value is promoted first. If you don't overshift there's no way to trigger the undefined behaviour, even when you shift multiple times - since by assigning to the smaller type the result gets cut down again, effectively leading to the behaviour I'd assumed. I would hardly call this a gotcha.
Where it might be confusing is in a situation like this:
char x = 42;
printf("%d\n", x << 4);
The latter problem[1] is applicable to other languages, including Rust, when they permit such type punning. C supports type punning because occasionally it's useful and necessary. The above invokes UB on Rust, too. Type punning has such a horrible code smell that you don't need unsafe{} as a gateway. Maybe for very inexperienced programmers, but they shouldn't be writing C code in situations where type punning suggests itself anymore than they should be writing assembly or unsafe Rust code.
C has many pitfalls, but I don't think I'm being overly pedantic here. There's no question C gives you a significant amount of rope to hang yourself (sometimes affirmatively but usually by turning its head when you steal some), but all languages give you slack to escape the limitations of how they model the environment--the points of contention are how much slack and at what cost. Arguing that requires more precision.
For example, even if we can agree that automatic arithmetic conversions are on balance a bad idea, it's still the fact that there's some benefit to that behavior, such as making your first example well-defined. That's not coincidental.
[1] It's actually only a problem if that routine actually stores the value through a uintptr_t pointer. If it casts the parameter to pointer-to-pointer-to-char before the store it's fine. You can cast a pointer to whatever you want, as many times as you want, and never will the casting, alone, change the semantics of the code. It's only actual load or store expressions that matter, and specifically the immediate pointer type they occur through.
Where you typically find code like this you do the correct thing--the abuse of function parameter types in this particular manner is usually because of const-ness headaches and the lack of function overloading (though now there's _Generic), and in those cases you're already paying attention to type punning pitfalls because you're already at a point where you're trying to skirt around relatively strict, inconvenient typing. If you're not then, again, you're not going to be doing the right thing when writing unsafe Rust code--and there are many more cases where Rust's strict typing is inconvenient, so arguably there's _greater_ risk with a language like Rust when the programmer is lazy or tired and resorts to subverting the type system.
Moreover, this isn't even a pointer aliasing problem. Pointer aliasing problems occur when the _order_ of loads or stores matters, but because of type punning the compiler can neither determine nor assume that access through variables of _different_ type point to the same object and thus it mustn't reorder the sequence. Not only is your example not a case of a single object accessed through multiple types across dependent loads and stores, it's not even a case of accessing through the same type. Unless you use the restrict qualifier, the compiler always assumes that two variables of the same pointer type alias the same object. Whether it's the _wrong_ type is a different, less consequential problem related to the potential for trap representations or alignment violations. But if the hardware doesn't care you'll get expected behavior; it's not the type of pitfall that threatens nasal daemons.