Re: Structure Return Testcase

[Jeffrey A Law <law at redhat dot com>]

  In message <200103160046.f2G0k0b52003@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com>you write:
  > For the record, my patch to fix the test case is effectively a
  > one-liner.  The code structure is as pre-existed: I did not add any
  > code to do this keying (I would not have known how to get that right).
  > In fact, the comment says that we will "use a safe function when
  > copying..." but the code precedes to use memcpy() instead of
  > memmove().  I just make the code match the comment with my patch.
  > 
  > > but it seems much cleaner to generate something
  > > other than a MODIFY_EXPR with the proper semantics.
  > 
  > I can't disagree with that idea.  However, I hope it is clear that the
  > current situation where a staging buffer is not used (whether we need
  > a single memcpy or memmove) is preferable to going back to a staging
  > buffer (where we always needed two memcpy unless the result was
  > unused).
  > 
  > To remove the regression from 2.95.2, I think my patch should be
  > applied.
I don't expect the MODIFY_EXPR will be terribly difficult or time consuming
to implement.

jeff