- Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

[release] Boost 1.82.0 Release Candidate 2 is available
by Löw, Tobias (Iqony Solutions GmbH) 13 Apr '23

13 Apr '23

Compiling the range mfc-iterators with msvc 143 (VS2022) results in a compilation error. It would be nice, if https://github.com/boostorg/range/pull/144 was addressed before the final release. Compilation error with msvc 143, std=c++latest: 1>D:\boost\range\detail\microsoft.hpp(626,33): error C2440: 'return': cannot convert from 'const void *' to 'const void *&' 1>D:\boost\range\detail\microsoft.hpp(624,1): message : while compiling class template member function 'const void *&boost::range_detail_microsoft::list_iterator<const X,const void *,boost::use_default,boost::use_default>::dereference(void) const' 1> with 1> [ 1> X=CPtrList 1> ] 1>D:\boost\iterator\iterator_facade.hpp(631,11): message : see reference to function template instantiation 'const void *&boost::range_detail_microsoft::list_iterator<const X,const void *,boost::use_default,boost::use_default>::dereference(void) const' being compiled 1> with 1> [ 1> X=CPtrList 1> ] 1>D:\boost\range\mfc.hpp(881,1): message : see reference to class template instantiation 'boost::range_detail_microsoft::list_iterator<const X,const void *,boost::use_default,boost::use_default>' being compiled 1> with 1> [ 1> X=CPtrList 1> ] Thanks Tobias

1 0

Re: [boost] quadmath as distinct library?
by Christopher Kormanyos 12 Apr '23

12 Apr '23

>>>> * problem description >>>> In boost::math::cstdfloat AND boost::multiprecision::float128>>>> identical functions for __float128 (quadmath) are provided. >>>> >>>> This is unnecessary overhead. I think it would make sense>>>> to "pull out" the quadmath library as a distinct library > Chris Kormanyos and I have discussed writing a software> implementation of binary128 that could be used cross> platform. That would be more valuable as a separate library. It is good to read this discussion. Historically, it all went like this... When we started <boost/cstdfloat.hpp>, we wereinterested in specifying floating-point types havingfixed-widths. This proposal was abandoned in the2013 timeframe, but recently picked up and broughtinto C++23 with some new stuff. Around that time, we also "invented" Multiprecision,which came into Boost 1.53, basically with the numberbackend and cpp_dec_float only. We went on(with lots and lots of work primiarly by John) toadd several backends to Multiprecision, one ofthem being Multiprecision's float128 backend. So indeed, we have two 128 bit floats hangingaround, yet form some platforms such as thepopular MSVC, we have zero 128-bit floatimplementations. Writing a uniform, cross-platform implementationcombined with aliases and/or seamless use inMultiprecision is, I believe, something of interestto us all. But i believe we need some specifyingwork and a few trial implementations in order tosee how all of this should fit in together nicelain a post C++23 domain. This is good discussion and I think we will followup on it. Chris On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 01:12:01 PM GMT+2, Matt Borland via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > On Apr 11, 2023, at 8:09 PM, Gero Peterhoff via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > Am 13.03.23 um 13:33 schrieb John Maddock via Boost: > >> On 13/03/2023 02:43, Gero Peterhoff via Boost wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> * problem description >>> In boost::math::cstdfloat AND boost::multiprecision::float128 identical functions for __float128 (quadmath) are provided. >>> >>> This is unnecessary overhead. I think it would make sense to "pull out" the quadmath library as a distinct library. I did this once canonically, but it doesn't work yet because boost::math::cstdfloat/boost::multiprecision::float128 have to be adapted for this. This is a prototype where there is still a lot of work to be done. But the beginning is done. >> >> If you mean https://github.com/boostorg/multiprecision/blob/develop/include/boost/multi… then it's a trivially small header, and spinning stuff out into a separate library has a significant maintenance overhead. > > I mean this canonically. > Advantages: > - For both compilers (gcc/intel) the functions/limits can be provided directly, without the mass #define/#undef function-macros. > - Clean separation and/or Konsolidierugn of the __float128 types: > a) gcc: __float128 GCC also provides support for __ibm128 on PowerPC platforms. We don’t have any support for it because there has been no demand signal. > b) intel: Windows _Qaud -> __float128, !Windows -> __float128 (https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-C-Compiler/C-Compiler-128-bit-floating…) > So there is only one type __float128. > - Clean/mature standard functions can be provided for IO. > Disadvantages: > - One-time(!) effort to update dependent libs. Boost.Multiprecision is already available without the rest of Boost: https://github.com/boostorg/multiprecision/releases so there isn’t much bloat in the way it can be consumed now. Chris Kormanyos and I have discussed writing a software implementation of binary128 that could be used cross platform. That would be more valuable as a separate library. Matt _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

1 0

[release] Boost 1.82.0 Release Candidate 2 is available
by don la dieu 12 Apr '23

12 Apr '23

It would be nice if https://github.com/boostorg/functional/pull/21 was addressed before final release. Alternatively see the below error. $ brew info boost llvm | grep bottled ==> boost: stable 1.81.0 (bottled), HEAD ==> llvm: stable 16.0.1 (bottled), HEAD [keg-only] $ clang++ --version Homebrew clang version 16.0.1 Target: arm64-apple-darwin21.6.0 Thread model: posix InstalledDir: /opt/homebrew/opt/llvm/bin $ cat functional_is_b0rk.cc #include <boost/functional.hpp> int main() {} $ clang++ -O0 -g -I/opt/homebrew/include -c functional_is_b0rk.cc In file included from functional_is_b0rk.cc:1: /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:45:24: error: no member named 'unary_function' in namespace 'std'; did you mean '__unary_function'? using std::unary_function; ~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __unary_function /opt/homebrew/opt/llvm/bin/../include/c++/v1/__functional/unary_function.h:46:1: note: '__unary_function' declared here using __unary_function = __unary_function_keep_layout_base<_Arg, _Result>; ^ In file included from functional_is_b0rk.cc:1: /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:46:24: error: no member named 'binary_function' in namespace 'std'; did you mean '__binary_function'? using std::binary_function; ~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __binary_function /opt/homebrew/opt/llvm/bin/../include/c++/v1/__functional/binary_function.h:49:1: note: '__binary_function' declared here using __binary_function = __binary_function_keep_layout_base<_Arg1, _Arg2, _Result>; ^ In file included from functional_is_b0rk.cc:1: /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:180:45: error: no template named 'unary_function' in namespace 'boost::functional::detail'; did you mean '__unary_function'? : public boost::functional::detail::unary_function<typename unary_traits<Predicate>::argument_type,bool> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __unary_function /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:45:24: note: '__unary_function' declared here using std::unary_function; ^ /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:214:45: error: no template named 'binary_function' in namespace 'boost::functional::detail'; did you mean '__binary_function'? : public boost::functional::detail::binary_function< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __binary_function /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:46:24: note: '__binary_function' declared here using std::binary_function; ^ /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:252:45: error: no template named 'unary_function' in namespace 'boost::functional::detail'; did you mean '__unary_function'? : public boost::functional::detail::unary_function< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __unary_function /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:45:24: note: '__unary_function' declared here using std::unary_function; ^ /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:299:45: error: no template named 'unary_function' in namespace 'boost::functional::detail'; did you mean '__unary_function'? : public boost::functional::detail::unary_function< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __unary_function /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:45:24: note: '__unary_function' declared here using std::unary_function; ^ /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:345:57: error: no template named 'unary_function' in namespace 'boost::functional::detail'; did you mean '__unary_function'? class mem_fun_t : public boost::functional::detail::unary_function<T*, S> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __unary_function /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:45:24: note: '__unary_function' declared here using std::unary_function; ^ /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:361:58: error: no template named 'binary_function' in namespace 'boost::functional::detail'; did you mean '__binary_function'? class mem_fun1_t : public boost::functional::detail::binary_function<T*, A, S> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __binary_function /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:46:24: note: '__binary_function' declared here using std::binary_function; ^ /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:377:63: error: no template named 'unary_function' in namespace 'boost::functional::detail'; did you mean '__unary_function'? class const_mem_fun_t : public boost::functional::detail::unary_function<const T*, S> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __unary_function /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:45:24: note: '__unary_function' declared here using std::unary_function; ^ /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:393:64: error: no template named 'binary_function' in namespace 'boost::functional::detail'; did you mean '__binary_function'? class const_mem_fun1_t : public boost::functional::detail::binary_function<const T*, A, S> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __binary_function /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:46:24: note: '__binary_function' declared here using std::binary_function; ^ /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:438:61: error: no template named 'unary_function' in namespace 'boost::functional::detail'; did you mean '__unary_function'? class mem_fun_ref_t : public boost::functional::detail::unary_function<T&, S> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __unary_function /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:45:24: note: '__unary_function' declared here using std::unary_function; ^ /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:454:62: error: no template named 'binary_function' in namespace 'boost::functional::detail'; did you mean '__binary_function'? class mem_fun1_ref_t : public boost::functional::detail::binary_function<T&, A, S> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __binary_function /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:46:24: note: '__binary_function' declared here using std::binary_function; ^ /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:470:67: error: no template named 'unary_function' in namespace 'boost::functional::detail'; did you mean '__unary_function'? class const_mem_fun_ref_t : public boost::functional::detail::unary_function<const T&, S> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __unary_function /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:45:24: note: '__unary_function' declared here using std::unary_function; ^ /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:487:68: error: no template named 'binary_function' in namespace 'boost::functional::detail'; did you mean '__binary_function'? class const_mem_fun1_ref_t : public boost::functional::detail::binary_function<const T&, A, S> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __binary_function /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:46:24: note: '__binary_function' declared here using std::binary_function; ^ /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:533:73: error: no template named 'unary_function' in namespace 'boost::functional::detail'; did you mean '__unary_function'? class pointer_to_unary_function : public boost::functional::detail::unary_function<Arg,Result> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __unary_function /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:45:24: note: '__unary_function' declared here using std::unary_function; ^ /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:557:74: error: no template named 'binary_function' in namespace 'boost::functional::detail'; did you mean '__binary_function'? class pointer_to_binary_function : public boost::functional::detail::binary_function<Arg1,Arg2,Result> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __binary_function /opt/homebrew/include/boost/functional.hpp:46:24: note: '__binary_function' declared here using std::binary_function; ^ 16 errors generated.

1 0

Re: [boost] quadmath as distinct library?
by Matt Borland 12 Apr '23

12 Apr '23

> On Apr 11, 2023, at 8:09 PM, Gero Peterhoff via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > Am 13.03.23 um 13:33 schrieb John Maddock via Boost: > >> On 13/03/2023 02:43, Gero Peterhoff via Boost wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> * problem description >>> In boost::math::cstdfloat AND boost::multiprecision::float128 identical functions for __float128 (quadmath) are provided. >>> >>> This is unnecessary overhead. I think it would make sense to "pull out" the quadmath library as a distinct library. I did this once canonically, but it doesn't work yet because boost::math::cstdfloat/boost::multiprecision::float128 have to be adapted for this. This is a prototype where there is still a lot of work to be done. But the beginning is done. >> >> If you mean https://github.com/boostorg/multiprecision/blob/develop/include/boost/multi… then it's a trivially small header, and spinning stuff out into a separate library has a significant maintenance overhead. > > I mean this canonically. > Advantages: > - For both compilers (gcc/intel) the functions/limits can be provided directly, without the mass #define/#undef function-macros. > - Clean separation and/or Konsolidierugn of the __float128 types: > a) gcc: __float128 GCC also provides support for __ibm128 on PowerPC platforms. We don’t have any support for it because there has been no demand signal. > b) intel: Windows _Qaud -> __float128, !Windows -> __float128 (https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-C-Compiler/C-Compiler-128-bit-floating…) > So there is only one type __float128. > - Clean/mature standard functions can be provided for IO. > Disadvantages: > - One-time(!) effort to update dependent libs. Boost.Multiprecision is already available without the rest of Boost: https://github.com/boostorg/multiprecision/releases so there isn’t much bloat in the way it can be consumed now. Chris Kormanyos and I have discussed writing a software implementation of binary128 that could be used cross platform. That would be more valuable as a separate library. Matt

1 0

Re: [boost] [release] Boost 1.82.0 Release Candidate 2 is available
by Glen Fernandes 12 Apr '23

12 Apr '23

On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 6:07 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > On 4/12/23 01:02, Marshall Clow wrote: > > On Apr 11, 2023, at 2:17 PM, Andrey Semashev via Boost < > boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > >> > >> On 4/10/23 17:36, Marshall Clow via Boost wrote: > >>> The second release candidates for the 1.82.0 release are now available > at: > >>> <https://boostorg.jfrog.io/artifactory/main/release/1.82.0/source/ < > https://boostorg.jfrog.io/artifactory/main/release/1.82.0/source/>> > >>> > >>> There is only one change from RC1 - a fix to ASIO that caused some > compile failures. > >>> Thanks to Ruben Perez for the report, and to Chris for the fix. > >>> > >>> > >>> The SHA256 checksums are as follows: > >>> > >>> 66a469b6e608a51f8347236f4912e27dc5c60c60d7d53ae9bfe4683316c6f04c > boost_1_82_0_rc2.tar.gz > >>> f7c9e28d242abcd7a2c1b962039fcdd463ca149d1883c3a950bbcc0ce6f7c6d9 > boost_1_82_0_rc2.zip > >>> a6e1ab9b0860e6a2881dd7b21fe9f737a095e5f33a3a874afc6a345228597ee6 > boost_1_82_0_rc2.tar.bz2 > >>> e72ff100482d4b371327b6c550dbd244d49c0186860ccc3b8c093dd621537e39 > boost_1_82_0_rc2.7z > >>> > >>> > >>> As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the > >>> candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both > >>> success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy. > >> > >> I would like the following last minute fix to be merged to > >> Boost.Filesystem master: > >> > >> > https://github.com/boostorg/filesystem/commit/176fce8e4d2016e864a0b9193cc4e… > >> > >> This should fix compilation on OpenBSD due to broken -Wl,--no-undefined > >> flag on this platform. > >> > >> This problem was reported very late: > >> > >> https://github.com/boostorg/filesystem/issues/283 > > > > Is this a new problem in this release? > > Yes. > If this is the only issue, I think we may put a Filesystem patch for OpenBSD users on the website instead of producing an RC3.

1 0

Re: [boost] [release] Boost 1.82.0 Release Candidate 2 is available
by Marshall Clow 11 Apr '23

11 Apr '23

On Apr 11, 2023, at 2:17 PM, Andrey Semashev via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > On 4/10/23 17:36, Marshall Clow via Boost wrote: >> The second release candidates for the 1.82.0 release are now available at: >> <https://boostorg.jfrog.io/artifactory/main/release/1.82.0/source/ <https://boostorg.jfrog.io/artifactory/main/release/1.82.0/source/>> >> >> There is only one change from RC1 - a fix to ASIO that caused some compile failures. >> Thanks to Ruben Perez for the report, and to Chris for the fix. >> >> >> The SHA256 checksums are as follows: >> >> 66a469b6e608a51f8347236f4912e27dc5c60c60d7d53ae9bfe4683316c6f04c boost_1_82_0_rc2.tar.gz >> f7c9e28d242abcd7a2c1b962039fcdd463ca149d1883c3a950bbcc0ce6f7c6d9 boost_1_82_0_rc2.zip >> a6e1ab9b0860e6a2881dd7b21fe9f737a095e5f33a3a874afc6a345228597ee6 boost_1_82_0_rc2.tar.bz2 >> e72ff100482d4b371327b6c550dbd244d49c0186860ccc3b8c093dd621537e39 boost_1_82_0_rc2.7z >> >> >> As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the >> candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both >> success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy. > > I would like the following last minute fix to be merged to > Boost.Filesystem master: > > https://github.com/boostorg/filesystem/commit/176fce8e4d2016e864a0b9193cc4e… > > This should fix compilation on OpenBSD due to broken -Wl,--no-undefined > flag on this platform. > > This problem was reported very late: > > https://github.com/boostorg/filesystem/issues/283 Is this a new problem in this release? — Marshall

2 1

Re: [boost] [release] Boost 1.82.0 Release Candidate 2 is available
by Andrey Semashev 11 Apr '23

11 Apr '23

On 4/10/23 17:36, Marshall Clow via Boost wrote: > The second release candidates for the 1.82.0 release are now available at: > <https://boostorg.jfrog.io/artifactory/main/release/1.82.0/source/ <https://boostorg.jfrog.io/artifactory/main/release/1.82.0/source/>> > > There is only one change from RC1 - a fix to ASIO that caused some compile failures. > Thanks to Ruben Perez for the report, and to Chris for the fix. > > > The SHA256 checksums are as follows: > > 66a469b6e608a51f8347236f4912e27dc5c60c60d7d53ae9bfe4683316c6f04c boost_1_82_0_rc2.tar.gz > f7c9e28d242abcd7a2c1b962039fcdd463ca149d1883c3a950bbcc0ce6f7c6d9 boost_1_82_0_rc2.zip > a6e1ab9b0860e6a2881dd7b21fe9f737a095e5f33a3a874afc6a345228597ee6 boost_1_82_0_rc2.tar.bz2 > e72ff100482d4b371327b6c550dbd244d49c0186860ccc3b8c093dd621537e39 boost_1_82_0_rc2.7z > > > As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the > candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both > success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy. I would like the following last minute fix to be merged to Boost.Filesystem master: https://github.com/boostorg/filesystem/commit/176fce8e4d2016e864a0b9193cc4e… This should fix compilation on OpenBSD due to broken -Wl,--no-undefined flag on this platform. This problem was reported very late: https://github.com/boostorg/filesystem/issues/283

1 0

Boost docs
by Peter Turcan 11 Apr '23

11 Apr '23

Hi, This week I joined CppAlliance as a technical writer - just introducing myself here! I am pumped to be writing some C++ code after several years hiatus. The last major project I wrote in C++ was a wargame that would cope with battle data from either the Napoleonic wars, or the American Civil War, and was called Battalia. It is still around in archive sites such as: https://archive.org/details/wargamer-depot_battalia Mostly I write developer documentation and tutorials. The work I enjoyed the most was writing the SDK for Microsoft Flight Simulator (and taught myself instrument flying in the process), the User Guides and SDK for WorldWide Telescope (an astronomy viewing program that involved working with NASA on Mars imagery data), and writing a range of developer tutorials for Azure IoT, Azure Search and Azure Maps. I was the main writer at Microsoft for the DirectX 12 documentation - though that was a brutally tough SDK to actually work with. Most developers stuck with DirectX 11 - not sure where Microsoft is now on its graphics APIs. At CppAlliance I hope to add value to the documentation on the libraries where I can - perhaps adding examples, better navigation, and more complete descriptions of parameters, edge-cases, errors - the usual suspects that are often missing from documentation but are sorely needed by developers. Also, I plan on getting hardcore with the introductions to each library. The question that should be answered in introductions to any library (or any SDK) is the "why" question. Why should I be interested in this library? What is the problem that I have that the library is solving? This is often missing. A typical introduction might answer the "What" question - such as "this particular piece of software converts A into B", and the "How" question (what tools and setup is needed), but avoids the why question: "why should I be interested in converting A into B". The answer might be: "this library converts A into B to provide your data with an additional level of security, when the data is communicated over the internet." By answering the why question, any developer will know immediately whether to continue reading, or look elsewhere. Another aspect of documentation to look at is style. For API reference type documentation (interfaces, functions, parameters), mostly a neutral style works well - just say exactly what is going on. For guide or more conceptual material, perhaps a chattier style is more appropriate - short sharp sentences, some wit and wisdom, less formality - like talking to a knowledgeable buddy. You probably have some great ideas too on adding value to the existing Boost documentation - happy to hear any and all feedback! - best Peter

1 0

Re: [boost] quadmath as distinct library?
by Gero Peterhoff 11 Apr '23

11 Apr '23

Am 13.03.23 um 13:33 schrieb John Maddock via Boost: > On 13/03/2023 02:43, Gero Peterhoff via Boost wrote: >> Hello, >> * problem description >> In boost::math::cstdfloat AND boost::multiprecision::float128 identical functions for __float128 (quadmath) are provided. >> >> This is unnecessary overhead. I think it would make sense to "pull out" the quadmath library as a distinct library. I did this once canonically, but it doesn't work yet because boost::math::cstdfloat/boost::multiprecision::float128 have to be adapted for this. This is a prototype where there is still a lot of work to be done. But the beginning is done. > If you mean https://github.com/boostorg/multiprecision/blob/develop/include/boost/multi… then it's a trivially small header, and spinning stuff out into a separate library has a significant maintenance overhead. I mean this canonically. Advantages: - For both compilers (gcc/intel) the functions/limits can be provided directly, without the mass #define/#undef function-macros. - Clean separation and/or Konsolidierugn of the __float128 types: a) gcc: __float128 b) intel: Windows _Qaud -> __float128, !Windows -> __float128 (https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-C-Compiler/C-Compiler-128-bit-floating…) So there is only one type __float128. - Clean/mature standard functions can be provided for IO. Disadvantages: - One-time(!) effort to update dependent libs. Gero

1 0

about boost::math
by Gero Peterhoff 11 Apr '23

11 Apr '23

a) __STDCPP_FLOAT80_T__ With C++23 we get std::floatN_t-types, which are displayed by the macros __STDCPP_FLOATn_T__. However I miss __STDCPP_FLOAT80_T__, which has its justification/relevance. One could retrofit this #if defined(BOOST_CSTDFLOAT_FLOAT80_NATIVE_TYPE) #define __STDCPP_FLOAT80_T__ namespace std { using float80_t = boost::float80_t; } #endif Would this be useful/wanted like this? b) complex-functions Since C++11 there are the functions abs, asin/h, acos/h, atan/h. These are also defined in boost/math/complex.hpp. But now with 1.82 boost::math is based on C++14, which makes these manual implementations obsolete -> boost/math/complex.hpp can be removed. c) constexpr I want to upgrade some functions in boost::math. How should/can I handle constexpr there? My problem is: - in gcc almost all math functions are constexpr - otherwise only some math functions with C++23 are constexpr Now it would be suboptimal not to use constexpr just because it is currently not in the standard. - If I don't define the additional functions as constexpr or stick strictly to the standard, performance might be wasted, which I don't want. - Can I simply define the additional functions with constexpr/BOOST_CXX14_CONSTEXPR? In case of an error there will be the standard-error "not constexpr". d) implementation In https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_82_0_beta1/libs/math/doc/html/math_toolkit… you describe how to implement a new math function. Is this still up to date or is it necessary for simple functions? E.g. cot -> 1/tan. thx Gero

1 0