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.

  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: link
Be 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).