[Bug c++/66701] __cxxabiv1::__cxa_pure_virtual - can it take an argument of the pointer to the function that was called, please?

[gcc-bugs at hussar dot demon.co.uk]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66701

--- Comment #2 from Jason <gcc-bugs at hussar dot demon.co.uk> ---
(With due sense of dread:) I note that the __cxxabiv1 seems to have a v1 in it.
Why not define a v2 with a better signature? Although I realise that this is a
quality-of-implementation issue, why should an apparently mis-declared function
signature be considered acceptable? I do not agree that this enhancement should
be marked as resolved invalid: I think that is a cop-out frankly.