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.
