public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/79700] std::fabsf and std::fabsl missing from <cmath> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 00:42:39 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-79700-4-Gfd98zDvXS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-79700-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79700 --- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Kip Warner from comment #12) > I didn't say STL. I said library designers which includes the standard C > runtime. Why a particular name is used by C is not relevant to C++. The function is in C++ because it was inherited from C99, with no discussion or consideration about suitability for the C++ library. > And no, I don't agree with you. Separate names are helpful for > greater certainty. As for std::ceilf existing just for consistency with C, > that's speculative and, in my view doubtful. It's not speculative. I am certain that ceilf was never once mentioned in a WG21 proposal (or minutes of WG21 meetings) until https://wg21.link/p0175 proposed explicitly naming it in the C++ standard for consistency with the contents of <math.h> in C99. It had previously been mentioned in https://wg21.link/lwg289 which concluded that ceilf etc were *not* part of the C++ standard (which meant C++98 at the time). There was no subsequent design decision to explicitly add it to C++, it was brought it when C++ rebased its library on the C99 library. In other words, for consistency with C. Your time would be better spent submitting a patch to add it to libstdc++ rather than trying to convince me of its history in the C++ library.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-24 0:42 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top [not found] <bug-79700-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> 2020-12-22 23:31 ` kip at thevertigo dot com 2020-12-23 8:34 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-12-23 17:33 ` kip at thevertigo dot com 2020-12-23 20:48 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-12-23 20:52 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-12-23 22:06 ` kip at thevertigo dot com 2020-12-23 23:04 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-12-23 23:09 ` kip at thevertigo dot com 2020-12-24 0:42 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2020-12-24 1:02 ` kip at thevertigo dot com 2021-03-02 10:57 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-03-24 14:26 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-11 3:27 ` hewillk at gmail dot com 2022-04-19 9:10 ` de34 at live dot cn 2022-04-22 3:37 ` de34 at live dot cn 2022-05-06 8:29 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-05-06 8:47 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-04-26 6:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-27 9:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-27 10:42 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-11-11 0:41 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-11-11 1:04 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-79700-4-Gfd98zDvXS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).