c++ default operators

[David Daney]

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