From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 92254386F411; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 00:42:39 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 92254386F411
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
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 6.3.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-79700-4-Gfd98zDvXS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-79700-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-79700-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 00:42:39 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D79700

--- 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 wo=
rds,
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.=