------- Comment #4 from vonbrand at inf dot utfsm dot cl 2008-02-06 18:23 ------- (In reply to comment #3) > I still don't understand what you are asking? Do you have an example of where > the differences comes into play? The only one I Know of is taking the address > of the function, The default argument case cannot be assigned to a function > pointer that takes less than the arguments (that means it needs to include the > default arguments in the function pointer).
Look at the attached testcase, there it does make a difference. This is simplified from a compile failure (now with gcc-4.3, it worked fine with 4.1) in Linley's Dungeon Crawl. [Strange.. I did attach the testcase before, it doesn't wshow up now?] -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35106
