https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116899
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > 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. It works fine with growing CFG. whatever problem I had once upon a time is probably long gone, it was years ago. I also wasn't/am not familiar with the nuances of vec initiations or that some versions are more effiicet than others. good to know.
