Others in this thread brought up several valid points. A few that I want to emphasize are:
Why were the previous proposals abandoned? Why do those same reasons not apply now? What has changed?
Architecture dependence. Yes, we can make it implementors’ problem, but if many fail to provide efficient implementations ––since these are likely less common compared to other hardware-dependent functions––then people won’t use them. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why previous proposals were abandoned?
This is really a C thing. There is nothing in this that C++ can do better than C. If standardized in C, it will have a wider user base too, and can be imported to C++ naturally.

> On May 30, 2025, at 12:25, Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Friday, 30 May 2025 12:26:43 Brasilia Standard Time Jan Schultke wrote:
>> Similarly, we don't require that users exhaustively learn every
>> function in <cmath>. You're perfectly able to use std::sqrt without
>> having learned the purpose of std::riemann_zeta, and you're unlikely
>> to confuse the two.
>
> No, but you should note the presence of std::csqrt and sqrtf and understand
> how they are not what you want.
>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
> Principal Engineer - Intel Platform & System Engineering
>
>
>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals