From: "bin" <dduupplleexx AT msn DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References: <3D747484 DOT 2A69A5AB AT bigfoot DOT com>
Subject: Re: Function problems with GCC 3.1
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 21:51:53 +0200
Lines: 65
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.199.144.65
Message-ID: <3d76565e@news.012.net.il>
X-Trace: news.012.net.il 1031165534 212.199.144.65 (4 Sep 2002 21:52:14 +0300)
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

foo.h---------------
void f(int a1, int a2=127);
foo.cc--------------
void f(int a1, int a2)
{
    //some code
}

Change header files only, then you can write simple script to add comments
into.cc files ;)
Anyway, smth wrong with software design, if you need at least 104 functions
with default arguments ;)

"Alex" <agarcim AT bigfoot DOT com> wrote in message
news:3D747484 DOT 2A69A5AB AT bigfoot DOT com...
> Hello.
>
> I have a program that compile ok in djgpp 2.03 with gcc 2.95.
>
> I migrated to gcc 3.1 with lots of problems.
>
> I'm solving them but one is annoying me:
>
> foo.h
> void f(int a,char b=1);
>
> foo.cc
> #include "foo.h"
> void f(int a,char b=1)
>   {
>      //some code
>   }
>
> When compiling I get the next error:
>
> foo.cc: 4692: default argument given for parameter 2 of
>   'void f(int,char=1)'
> foo.h:29: after previous specification in 'void f(int a,char b=1)'
>
> If in foo.cc I change the definition to 'void f(int a,char b)' it
> compiles.
>
> The problem is:
>
> a)  I can't see the default value of 'b' without open
> foo.h (or add a comment to the function in foo.cc)
> I have 104 header files and is very annoying opening them
> each time I want to work with its .cc file.
> More annoying is open 104 .cc files to add a comment
> to each function to comment a thing that was
> auto-commented in gcc 2.95.
>
> b) I have to modify 104 .cc files with hundreds of functions
> to change te definition of the functions.
>
> Any suggerences?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> -- Alex --
>
>
>