https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62306
--- Comment #4 from Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail dot com> --- So it looks like the reason was ---------------- <jason> My thinking was that the ABI change should also support implementations that implement D0 as another entry point into the destructor <jakub> jason: leaving D0 out of D5 would be easiest, but would perhaps be a problem for other implementations ----------------- But I am not sure what the extra entry point would look like. D0 has a call to delete *after* the call to the other destructor, so there is no tail that could be used as an alternative entry point.
