[lifthrasiir]

> All the standard Maths libraries which claim to be IEEE complaint I have tested are not compliant with this constraint.

It is possible to read the standard in the way that they still remain compliant. The standard, as of IEEE 754-2019, does not require recommended operations to be implemented in accordance to the standard in my understanding; implementations are merely recommended to ("should") define recommended operations with the required ("shall") semantics. So if an implementation doesn't claim that given recommended operation is indeed compliant, the implementation remains complaint in my understanding.

One reason for which I think this might be the case is that not all recommended operations have a known correctly rounded algorithm, in particular bivariate functions like pow (in fact, pow is the only remaining one at the moment IIRC). Otherwise no implementations would ever be complaint as long as those operations are defined!

[stephencanon]

Right; IEEE 754 (2019) _recommends_ that correctly rounded transcendental functions be provided, but does not require it. The next revision of the standard may require that a subset of correctly-rounded transcendental functions be provided (this is under active discussion), but would still not require how they are bound in the language (i.e. a C stdlib might provide both `pow` and `cr_pow` or similar), and might not require that all functions be correctly rounded over their entire range (e.g. languages might require only that `cr_sin` be correctly rounded on [-π,π]).