https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119294
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- >It's furthermore strange that `set_indirect()` compiles to different code than >`set()`, even though the former (should) just directly inline the latter. That is because in the set case the argument still has its address taken (due to the memset) while in the set_indirect case it is a variable (that was created with the copy of the argument). Both issues will be fixed if the memset is converted into a vector constructor.
