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.
