Difference between explicit specialization and regular functions when overloading a template function

Question

I'm on a roll today. Here goes n00b question number 7:

What's the difference between explicit specialization and just regular functions when you try to overload a template function?

What's the appropriate situation to use the explicit specialization? I don't quite understand it:

#include <iostream>

template <typename s> void test(s var1);
template <> void test<int>(int var1);

int main(){
    test(1);
    test(1.1);
    test("hello!!");
    return 0;
}

template <typename s> void test(s var1){
    std::cout << var1 << std::endl;
}

template <> void test<int>(int var1){
    std::cout << "int " << var1 << std::endl;
}

As oppose to:

#include <iostream>

template <typename s> void test(s var1);
void test(int var1);

int main(){
    test(1);
    test(1.1);
    test("hello!!");
    return 0;
}

template <typename s> void test(s var1){
    std::cout << var1 << std::endl;
}

void test(int var1){
    std::cout << "int " << var1 << std::endl;
}

Answer 1

There really isn't a difference between an explicitly specialized template function and a non-template regular function other than the fact that when the compiler looks for a matching signature type for the function call, it will first pick a non-template function that matches the required signature before trying to instantiating any available template functions that may fulfill the required signature match.

If you are going to declare and define a function inside a header file that is not a template-function though, you will have to declare the function as inline. That is because a template function is not an actual function that is linked with a code module until it is actually instantiated. The linker then throws away that instantiation after compiling the code module. If the linker did not do this, then every time a .cpp file included the header file, the linker would complain about duplicate definitions for a function. Using the inline keyword on a non-template function has a similar effect at the compiler level, in that any time the function is used in a .cpp file, the compiler replaces that function call with the body of the function code from the inline function in the header file, and avoids the overhead of a function call with an associated stack active record setup and clean-up. Therefore the linker won't complain about duplicate definitions for a function.

Answer 2

I'm not an expert, but my experience is to use templates (and specialization) when I want to define different return types. You can't overload the return type of a function.