P0533 will ride again

Unfortunately, P0533 (see here for previous posts) didn’t make it into C++20 either (originally targeted at C++ 17). It seems that there were just too many good papers and they couldn’t work through them all in the available time.

There’s lots of good stuff and clearly a strong and growing interest in constexpr’ing everything that can be constexpr’d, so I hold out hope for both it and P1383 in C++2.. uh… 2b? Or not 2b?

Follow their progress in the trackers here:

More constexpr in C++20

The C++ Kona meeting starts tomorrow or if you prefer on February the 18th, 2019, since you’re probably not reading this on the day I’m writing it. Apart from looking forward to C++20 in general, it matters to me because I’ve got two closely related papers under consideration.  TL;DR:


Except since they’re C++ committee papers, it’s actually more like:


Since the C++ committee doesn’t accept memes as proposals, what we actually submitted is:

  1. P0533R4, a proposal to add constexpr to the elementary cmath functions. Elementary is in this case as on the same level as +,-,* and /, which we defined formally as closed over the rationals.Floating point numbers aren’t rationals of course, but arithmetic operations have the property that if you apply them to a rational number you get a rational number (unlike, say, sqrt) and importantly, there are no domain errors when fed with a finite number. Our property seemed to be the simplest one that fitted. Looking at the other functions, we found things like floor, ceil also fitted neatly.

    We though this paper would be straightforward since those functions really aren’t fundamentally different from arithmetic, so  the same rules should apply.

  2. P1383R0 a proposal to constexpr most of the rest of cmath. The LEWG pretty much liked P0533 and asked if we could submit a further paper to add constexpr to the non elementary functions.This paper adds most of the rest (sin, cos, exp, log, lgamma, etc). After some useful discussion, we excluded the cmath special functions, on the grounds that there are very few people in the world who know how to implement them so having them in could be a serious burden on compiler vendors.

If they get in then this post will finally be legal C++.

Enhanced constexpr

In an earlier post I wrote about using constexpr to generate compile time lookup tables. Unfortunately it turns out that that was dependent on a GCC extension. In actual C++14, pretty much nothing in <cmath> is constexpr.

My brother and I have written a proposal, currently P0533R0 to introduce a number of constexpr functions into <cmath>. Making functions constexpr is slightly tricky because some of them may set the global variable errno and/or floating point exception flags (effectively global variables),  and so it needs to be a language solution, not a pure library one. However, the basic arithmetic operators also fall into similar traps, so it’s not that bad.

The initial paper is to constexpr-ify all “simple” functions which don’t have pointer arguments. In this case, simple is defined as “closed over the extended rationals”, which includes the standard arithmetic operators, comparison operators and things like floor() and ceil(). It turns out there are actually rather a lot of these including many I’d never heard of before ploughing through <cmath>.

I think it should be straightforward to implement since GCC and LLVM both already do compile time evaluation of even non-simple functions (e.g. sqrt), the former actually making them constexpr as an extension of C++14, the latter only using them in the optimizer.