Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> + memcpy(t, &blank, sizeof(*t)); >> > >> > Is >> > *t = blank; >> > >> > not a thing in C? > > It would be fine to use struct assignment here, and should be equivalent > in most compilers. They know about memcpy() and will inline it as > appropriate. FWIW, I'd be fine with structure assignment, but we already have too many such memcpy(<ptr>, &<struct>, sizeof(struct)), adding one more is not giving us too much incremental burden for later clean-up. > I think some C programmers tend to prefer memcpy() just because that's > how they think. It also wasn't legal in old K&R compilers, but as far as > I know was in C89. I think so, too.
