[cfe-dev] Fix for PR4701

[David Chisnall]

On 15 Aug 2009, at 00:51, steve naroff wrote:

> Given the number of fields, it sounds like we should go with your
> least disruptive solution to this. You've convinced me that my
> original suggestion is unlikely to scale to 23 fields...
>
> Oh well. Given the amount of time I spent on this "cleanup", I hate to
> add cruft (but we need to support the legacy idioms I suppose...).

Is it okay if I commit this patch?  Then we can start ironing out any  
issues that arise.

David