more non-useless destructors desired

[Kenny Simpson]

> > Is there some reason why these should not have
> explicit destructors too?  Is it too late to add them due to
> ABI issues?
> >   
> first blush, I believe this change could be doable, because
> the
> destructors already exist and are exported by the library
> anyway, only
> as "W" instead of "T". Did you
> experiment already with actually
> declaring / defining such destructors in stdexcept /
> stdexcept.cc?

I did experiment with putting the destructor declarations into stdexcept and doing a few test cases with compiling bits of code against the alternate header.  That all worked and had the expected resulting symbol tables and runtime binding behaviors - e.g. typeinfo/vtable symbols emitted as 'U' and resolved against the weak symbols from libstdc++.

Are there any specific experiments you had in mind?

-Kenny