https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86013
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jan Kratochvil from comment #0) > Maybe it could even always call realloc() for size reduction of any type of > objects and just assert the returned pointer did not change. I can't find anywhere a guarantee that realloc doesn't move stuff when the new size is smaller than the old. (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > I wonder if technically shrink_to_fit() is allowed to elide the shrinking? > And yes, I'm equally shocked about the need to copy! What would be the point of shrink_to_fit() otherwise? It was created as a nicer alternative for people who were copying to a new temporary vector and swapping them.
