[Bug c++/62306] [4.9/5 Regression?] Change in the comdat used for constructors

[rafael.espindola at gmail dot com]

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.