This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: c++ default operators

From: David Daney <ddaney at avtrex dot com>
To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
Cc: Tommy Vercetti <vercetti at zlew dot org>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:23:14 -0700
Subject: Re: c++ default operators
References: <200509231909.22004@gj-laptop> <20050923224400.GB10562@synopsys.com>

Joe Buck wrote:


Another extra function people sometimes complain about is the two copies
of the constructor: the in-charge version is for constructing an instance
of the class, and the not-in-charge version is for initializing the base
portion of a derived class.  Getting rid of the not-in-charge version,
for cases where it isn't needed, would require something like Java's
"final" keyword.

Can't you get rid of the not-in-charge version by using -ffunction-sections and then linking with -Wl,--gc-sections (at least for an ELF/GNU binutils target)?

David Daney

References:
- c++ default operators
  - From: Tommy Vercetti
- Re: c++ default operators
  - From: Joe Buck

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]