https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116899
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Even if create (n) didn't work (which would be good to debug), the x.safe_grow_cleared (n); x.truncate (0); can be just done more efficiently with x.reserve (n); Anyway, the more important question is if range-cache can work even if the number of basic blocks grows in the middle and whether say just using safe_push instead of quick_push would do the trick.
