You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
What is the feature you'd like to have?
When the destination of a call to __builtin_memcpy is a stack variable that has been typed with a structure, it would be nice for the __builtin_memcpy to be exploded into a series of structure field assignments, in a similar fashion to how non-stack variable static assignments are handled.
Is your feature request related to a problem?
There is a loss of clarity when a stack-local structure is initialized with default values and those get optimized into a single static assignment which gets translated into a __builtin_memcpy call. See below screenshot for example.
Are any alternative solutions acceptable?
None that I have considered.
Additional Information:
Please add any other context or screenshots that would help us understand your feature request here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
w1282
changed the title
Structure Field Assignments via __builtin_memcpy
Missing Structure Field Assignments via __builtin_memcpy on Stack Vars
May 10, 2023
What is the feature you'd like to have?
When the destination of a call to
__builtin_memcpy
is a stack variable that has been typed with a structure, it would be nice for the__builtin_memcpy
to be exploded into a series of structure field assignments, in a similar fashion to how non-stack variable static assignments are handled.Is your feature request related to a problem?
There is a loss of clarity when a stack-local structure is initialized with default values and those get optimized into a single static assignment which gets translated into a
__builtin_memcpy
call. See below screenshot for example.Are any alternative solutions acceptable?
None that I have considered.
Additional Information:
Please add any other context or screenshots that would help us understand your feature request here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: