http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-06-06 16:36:31 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > Joseph, Jason - any opinion on the question of equivalence between > memcpy/memset and an aggregate assignment/init (also consider anonymous > memory)? The transformation seems safe to me. Aggregate assignment/init leave anonymous bit-fields and padding with unspecified contents, but I imagine GCC initializes/copies them anyway. In C++ any class that would be affected by the difference is not trivially copyable, so using memset/memcpy is already undefined behavior.
