> IMHO C++ puts the same things in .data, when compared to C.
I do agree that given the same source, you get the same thing in .data.
But when I read other people source code, because they work and think in C++, they will use classes instead of structure/base-types for the most basic things, and define virtual desctructors just in case they need it at a later time, and work with "auto ptr" to manage the list of 80000 parameters in a sorted collection.
I know the C way to manage the parameter "loglevel" as an unsigned integer for debug and as a constant for costumer versions is not as flexible as the C++ way, that because the user is not using a "setter" checking for min/max values he may write incorrect values there, but sometimes I am thinking simpler is better (mostly for such debug parameter).
In short I am not thinking the problem is in the toolchain, but in the mentality of using features just because they exists, of generalising small problems until nothing is constant anymore. For instance writing the line (without even the const keyword) inside or outside a class:
unsigned int bits_per_byte = 8;
That was my humble opinion, I know there is some clever ways those things can be sorted in C++, I have no hope to see this 60 Mbytes source code software cleaned or booting quicker (because everything is constructed at boot).