Re: additional math-functions

From: Gero Peterhoff (g.peterhoff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2022-08-17 19:29:12

> Gero,
> 
> Some of the checks you will find in the ccmath library seem common sense, but it is implemented to match the C++23 proposal (now standard) for constexpr cmath and cstdlib functionality. We used C++17 throughout to provide a clean solution with a reasonable language standard. If you look at the definition of BOOST_MATH_IS_CONSTANT_EVALUATED we are already using compiler intrinsics to allow this to be used without C++20s std::is_constant_evaluated. For non-trivial functionality C++11 would become extremely difficult to implement. C++14 would require code bloat that we can get around with if constexpr. Feel free to open up PRs and I will review your solutions.
> 
> Matt
> 
Hello Matt, Hello John,
I wrote that it is possible to define workarounds. This even works with C++11 without having to fiddle on ccmath. But for that I need a few #define and the code has to be C++11-compatible (single return statement). In this way, constexpr boost::math functions can already be implemented if the compiler supports it. I have implemented a few functions for testing and would like to ask whether I can implement the remaining functions in this way. If this is not ok, please let me know exactly under which conditions this would have to be done.
https://godbolt.org/z/oM8eT5qoj


thx
Gero