http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37237



--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-26 
04:35:16 UTC ---

(In reply to comment #11)

> What I'd like to know is what is guaranteed.

> Previously gcc didn't emit the linkage name for any destructor -- but

> this would make the proposed solution much harder to implement (gdb

> would have to implement name mangling...).

> So I suppose I'd like a guarantee that the destructor will be emitted

> with at least one linkage name.



I would guess that the earlier situation was a bug whereby we were only

emitting code for the cloned function, not the clones, and we don't give a

linkage name for an abstract function.  In any case, it was a bug, and we

should continue to emit linkage names like we do for any other function.

Reply via email to