On Sat, Oct 17, 2026 at 10:37:50AM +0000, Julius Bairaktaris wrote:
> gentle ping on this one. Is keeping get_insns () for the
> expand_phi_nodes case fine with you? If so, I'll send a v3 that
I guess I can live with that. Would be useful to check if something
later fixes it up (and moves the NOTE_INSN_BEGIN_BLOCK where it should
be and/or equivalently creates a separate bb from that insn only and
then merges them).
> names expand_phi_nodes in the comment. If you'd prefer another way,
> I'm happy to change it.
Jakub
