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.
